# Conditional sentences with different tenses



## Prower

I know that both sentences are possible and correct. Could you tell me the factor which predetermines the usage of each of them? In other words, what is the difference between them and what prerequisites should a speaker have in order to  choose one or another?

*If it will save the situation, I'll stop doing it.  

If it saves the situation, I'll stop doing it. *


----------



## Oeco

They're both correct and as far as I can tell, both have the same sense.  The second sentence seems to assume a future moment in which the situation is to be saved while the first uses "will" to be clear that the saving is at some future point.  The "will" in the contraction "I'll" also makes the point about the future.


----------



## Loob

I agree with Oeco that both are correct. 

That said, I'm more likely to use the first, I think. This is one of the rare occasions on which we do use the future in an "if" clause - when the action or event in the "if" clause is the result of, and not a prior condition for, the action or event in the main clause.


----------



## Prower

Loob said:


> This is one of the rare occasions on which we do use the future in an "if" clause - when the action or event in the "if" clause is the result of, and not a prior condition for, the action or event in the main clause.


Let me stop and dwell for a moment on what you've said. (As a matter of fact, I haven't been questioning whether they are correct or not)


*If it will save the situation, I'll stop doing it. *
It means that only I can save it by stopping doing it and it will be saved only AFTER I stop doing it. Right?

*If it saves the situation, I'll stop doing it.*

It means that I will stop doing it IF something else *happens *before my stopping doing it and *saves *the situation. Right?


----------



## mapache-pcp

They both mean the same thing. In the second sentence the present is being used as a future.


----------



## Prower

mapache-pcp said:


> They both mean the same thing. In the second sentence the present is being used as a future.


If they mean COMPLETELY the same thing why do they exist in two COMPLETELY different forms?


----------



## mapache-pcp

This happens all the time in English. Example:

_I have cleaned my room._
_I cleaned my room._

There is not really any difference in meaning. 

But if the verb is "to smoke"' there IS a complete difference in meaning:

_I have smoked for ten years._ (I still smoke)
_I smoked for ten years_. (I smoked for 10 years and don't smoke any more.)

These things are idiomatic and I can't really answer why the different forms.


----------



## Prower

I see your point but I don't think that they are 100% the same. There must be some difference.

_I have cleaned my room._
_I cleaned my room._ - Are also not completely the same.


----------



## Loob

Prower said:


> If they mean COMPLETELY the same thing why do they exist in two COMPLETELY different forms?


The second sentence follows the normal 'Type1 conditional' sequence "If+present, future".  The first sentence has the "special case" sequence: "if+future, future".

By the way, you're right, the second sentence could, in a particular context, have a different meaning from the first.  But unless the context indicated otherwise, the second sentence would - as mapache says - have the same meaning as the first one.


----------



## Prower

Loob said:


> By the way, you're right, the second sentence could, in a particular context, have a different meaning from the first.



This is what I am after....... What is that "different meaning" which could take place in a particular context? Could you disclose the secret?


----------



## Loob

Prower said:


> This is what I am after....... What is that "different meaning" which could take place in a particular context? Could you disclose the secret?


You've already disclosed it, Prower - see your post 4.

Meaning 1: the "it" in the if-clause refers to "I'll stop doing it"
This meaning is the only meaning for the first sentence and the most likely meaning for the second sentence.
Meaning 2: the "it" in the if-clause refers to something else which comes in and saves the situation.
This meaning is possible, in a particular context, for the second sentence, but not possible for the first sentence.


----------



## Prower

Loob said:


> You've already disclosed it, Prower - see your post 4.


Oh my gosh, all answers are within ourselves. Oh....!!!!!!


----------



## mapache-pcp

> see your point but I don't think that they are 100% the same. There must be some difference.
> 
> _I have cleaned my room._
> _I cleaned my room._ - Are also not completely the same.


 
No in terms of meaning there is virtually no difference. There WOULD be a difference if you added the specific time the event occurred.

The rule is (one of the uses of the Pres Perf versus S Past) the Present Perfect (first sentence) is usually more concerned with IF the action occured than WHEN it occurred. The simple past is usually used when you then pinpoint specifics as to WHEN. 

"Have you cleaned your room?" I want to know yes or no. I am not asking about when or anything else specific about the past. "Yes I have."' (or no I have not.)

The simple past appears when you then pinpoint a time that the action was done. "When DID you clean it?"' I CLEANED it at 10:00PM .

So if you add time descriptors yes there is a difference.

I suppose what I am trying to say is, technically yes by definition the simple past and persent perfect ARE different. If you want me to list the differences and how they are used I can do that.

But with some sentences, because of the nature of the verb and/or how the sentence is constructed, the meaning happens to be the same. This is the case with

I have cleaned my room.
versus
I cleaned my room.

NOTICE tho, that... 

If I added "'...at 10M," then using the present perfect would be incorrect. You would not say "'I have cleaned my room at 10:00." But you definitely could and would say "I cleaned my room at 10:00."

I hope this makes sense. I found the pres perfect and its uses to be one of the hardest things for my students to grasp for just this reason. Whether to use the pres perf versus s. past changes depending on the nature of the verb and also the structure of the sentence. Yes by definition the pres perf and s. past are different. but it so happens that there are some sentences in which you could use either of them, and the meaning is the same. But for some verbs (to smoke, to live, etc.) OR with other types of sentence constructions (leaving specifics about the past out) the meaning is different.
========
As far as "will save" and " saves" I want to say the second one COULD in the mind of the speaker be said in a sense for which there is a difference. I think it depends on what the speaker means. If theya re talking about the future in one and making statements about the present in the other then they are different. But if they mean "for the future"' for both they are the same.


----------



## Einstein

I see two different meanings of "if".
The example with "will" means:
If you're telling me that it (stopping the action) will save the situation, I'll stop doing it.
This is not really a standard conditional sentence because we use "if" to make an observation, more than to state a condition that we don't know.

If you *don't listen* I'll stop talking.
(We'll try once more and see whether you listen; if not, I'll give up explaining).
If you *won't listen* I'll stop talking.
(I see you have no intention of listening, so I'm not going to say any more).

If it *doesn't rain* tomorrow we'll go to the sea.
(We'll see what the weather's like tomorrow and then decide).
If it *won't rain* tomorrow, then we'll go to the sea.
(You're sure it won't rain tomorrow? Good, then we'll go to the sea).

I'm sure someone will be able to demolish my arguments!


----------



## redgiant

Einstein said:


> I see two different meanings of "if".
> The example with "will" means:
> If you're telling me that it (stopping the action) will save the situation, I'll stop doing it.
> This is not really a standard conditional sentence because we use "if" to make an observation, more than to state a condition that we don't know.
> 
> If you *don't listen* I'll stop talking.
> (We'll try once more and see whether you listen; if not, I'll give up explaining).
> If you *won't listen* I'll stop talking.
> (I see you have no intention of listening, so I'm not going to say any more).
> 
> If it *doesn't rain* tomorrow we'll go to the sea.
> (We'll see what the weather's like tomorrow and then decide).
> If it *won't rain* tomorrow, then we'll go to the sea.
> (You're sure it won't rain tomorrow? Good, then we'll go to the sea).
> 
> I'm sure someone will be able to demolish my arguments!


Thanks
I'd like to know if others agree with these interesting arguments.


----------



## Lodzubelieveit

I think Einstein's explanation is right. For me, the _If_ in the _If it will_... sentence means something more like 'As'; the _If_ in the 'usual' first conditional sentence means the usual 'wait and see'.

The thing is, the examples given in the OP are confusing, without explaining what the four _it_s mean, exactly. The combination of _stop_ and _save_ are potentially confusing too, and might mean that Einstein's (correct and appropriate) examples are not equivalent to the OP's slightly confusing question; e.g.:

_If it saves my career, I'll stop drinking. _(wouldn't be logical to say this at all if 'it' = 'stop drinking'; neither would it be logical to stop drinking because 'it' (= something else) saves my career, unless out of some gesture of thanks or remorse or whatever)

_If it will save my career, I'll stop drinking. _(would indeed be logical to suppose 'it' = 'stop drinking', perhaps in the context of someone else previously warning the speaker about the dangers of alcoholism)


----------



## Einstein

_*If it will save my career, I'll stop drinking.*_

The truly conditional sentence would be (from a friend or colleague):
_If you stop drinking, it'll save your career._

The person concerned can reply:
_If (given that) this is your opinion (that my stopping will save my career), then I'll stop._
_--------------------_
Another example:
_Be careful with that vase! If you drop it, it'll break!_
Reply:
_If it'll break, I won't drop it._
Clearly the second sentence is not a true conditional sequence; it means:
_Given that careless behaviour will cause the vase to break, I'll be careful._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Prower said:


> Let me stop and dwell for a moment on what you've said. (As a matter of fact, I haven't been questioning whether they are correct or not)
> 
> 
> *If it will save the situation, I'll stop doing it. *
> It means that only I can save it by stopping doing it and it will be saved only AFTER I stop doing it. Right?
> 
> *If it saves the situation, I'll stop doing it.*
> 
> It means that I will stop doing it IF something else *happens *before my stopping doing it and *saves *the situation. Right?


The first part of this is incorrect, I think. *If it will save the situation, I'll stop doing it* is not saying that my stopping doing it is a necessary condition of saving the situation: it is not only I who can save the situation; the situation maybe could be saved by something else altogether. The sentence presents the condition as being sufficient; my stopping doing it would be enough to save the situation.

There's a third similar sentence lurking, which Prower hasn't mentioned, yet: *If it would save the situation, I'll stop doing it. *In many ways this is the form you are most likely to hear in the context most people are imagining here, I think.

Loob has made an important point, I think: this is a case where the if-clause is referring to something subsequent to the main clause. The sentences are saying _If it* is*_ (present) _the case that the situation will (or would) be saved by my stopping doing it, I *will*_ (future)_ stop doing it_. That way it looks much more like the Type 1 conditional I suspect it really is.


----------



## Einstein

Thomas Tompion said:


> _If it* is*_ (present) _the case that the situation will (or would) be saved by my stopping doing it, I *will*_ (future)_ stop doing it_. That way it looks much more like the Type 1 conditional I suspect it really is.


I still don't think this is a real Type 1 conditional sentence, where we state a possible condition and the ensuing result if it should turn out to be true. Here the speaker is accepting and recognising that the situation will be saved by his stopping and therefore announces his intention to stop; we can substitute _if_ with _as_ or _given that_. It wouldn't fit here to add, _On the other hand, if it's not the case, I won't stop._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Einstein said:


> I still don't think this is a real Type 1 conditional sentence, where we state a possible condition and the ensuing result if it should turn out to be true. Here the speaker is accepting and recognising that the situation will be saved by his stopping and therefore announces his intention to stop; we can substitute _if_ with _as_ or _given that_. It wouldn't fit here to add, _On the other hand, if it's not the case, I won't stop._


I can see your point, Einstein, but I don't think I agree.  For me the if-clause is a true condition - if this happens, I will do that - if you smile at me, I will be nice to you.

Here the speaker is saying if this condition (that it's true that etc.) *is *met, I *will* do that.  Clearly you will have to persuade him that it is true, but then he will do whatever it is.

It looks as though the sentence is disordered by the condition apparently following the action to be taken, but I think that's only because of the way (and I'm not saying it's not the usual way, just that the usual way is misleading) the sentences in the OP are formed.


----------



## Prower

"If it would save the situation, I'll stop doing it."

What a hybrid is that?)))


----------



## Prower

Thomas Tompion said:


> The first part of this is incorrect, I think. *If it will save the situation, I'll stop doing it* is not saying that my stopping doing it is a necessary condition of saving the situation: it is not only I who can save the situation; the situation maybe could be saved by something else altogether.


So, what is the right meaning of this sentence? Is it really so that "my stopping doing it is NOT a necessary condition of saving the situation."? I am not sure.

Let me think about it outloud.

I think that in these two sentences we have different *triggers *which cause the speaker to stop doing it.

*1) If it saves the situation, I'll stop doing it. *

The "trigger" in this sentence is an action happening apart from "MY STOPPING DOING IT". 
If his coming saves the situation, I'll stop doing it. (The initiative of his coming doesn't depend on "my stop doing it")

So, my stopping doing it depends on EXTERNAL FACTOR. 

*2) If it will save the situation, I'll stop doing it.*

The "trigger" in this sentence is not an action itself but only a hypothetical assumption. I am not waiting for something to happen initiated by someone else because nothing will happen unless I do something myself. And if my doing something WILL save the situation AFTER I DO it, then I will do it. It seems like we have two FUTURE action here. 

The first one is an action in the FUTURE and the second one is the result which is even futher than the action.

-----my doing it---------------RESULT (assumption)-------------FUTURE
==============================

It seems to me that if we use two futures then there must be 

my stopping doing it *SHOULD BE a necessary condition* of saving the situation

Otherwise, there should be used the second pattern Present SIMPLE + FUTURE SIMPLE

-----------------
I am not 100% sure (as it is quite a difficult situation), but this is how I see it *now.*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Prower said:


> So, what is the right meaning of this sentence?


 It's a sufficient rather than a necessary condition.  It's not that y won't happen unless x, but that if you have x, y will happen.
I said what I think it means:

_If it* is*_ (present) _the case that the situation will (or would) be saved by my stopping doing it, I *will*_ (future)_ stop doing it_.

You've got to persuade him that the condition holds.


----------



## Prower

Compare


Thomas Tompion said:


> The first part of this is incorrect, I think. *If it will save the situation, I'll stop doing it* is not saying that my stopping doing it is a necessary condition of saving the situation: *it is not only I who can save the situation;* the situation maybe could be saved by something else altogether.


and 


Thomas Tompion said:


> _If it* is*_ (present) _the case that the situation will (or would) be saved by my stopping doing it, I *will*_ (future)_ stop doing it_.



If *it is not only I who can save the situation;* then why do you use "my stopping doing it" in your second quotation.

(I don't insist on your conclusion being wrong, it's just that I don't see that it works for me.)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Prower said:


> Compare
> 
> and
> 
> 
> If *it is not only I who can save the situation;* then why do you use "my stopping doing it" in your second quotation.
> 
> (I don't insist on your conclusion being wrong, it's just that I don't see that it works for me.)


Try it this way: suppose there are four things, *a, b, c*, & *d,* which can bring about *the saving of the situation* (*Y*), and suppose that* a.* is *my stopping doing it*.

Now it's clear that it's wrong to say that *my stopping doing it* (*a*) is the only thing which can *save the situation (Y).* There remain three other effective expedients,* b, c,* & *d*.

*a.* is sufficient (if *a*, then *Y*) but not necessary (if *Y*, then *a* - if *a.* is the only thing which will bring about *Y*, then if you have *Y*, you have *a*.)


----------



## Prower

I agree with that. The question is: "Why should we use FUTURE SIMPLE + FUTURE SIMPLE in this case?" We can happily use a standard pattern - Present Simple + Future Simple. How do we justify two FUTURES?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Prower said:


> I agree with that. The question is: "Why should we use FUTURE SIMPLE + FUTURE SIMPLE in this case?" We can happily use a standard pattern - Present Simple + Future Simple. How do we justify two FUTURES?


 
_



If it* is* (present) the case that the situation will (or would) be saved by my stopping doing it, I *will* (future) stop doing it.
		
Click to expand...

_The structure of the sentence is _If it *is* the case that *Y *follows_ (or _will follow_, or _would follow_) _from *a*_, _then I *will *do *a*_. 

The tenses in the subordinate clause are not part of the main structure of the if-clause. The key tense from that point of view is the present (_is_) at the start.

The problem lies in the fact that we usually leave out the _it is the case that_, so it looks as though the future or present or conditional is the important verb in the if-clause.

_If (it* is*_ (present) _the case that) the situation will (or would) be saved by my stopping doing it, I *will *_(future)_ stop doing it_.


----------



## Einstein

I'll give another two eurocents' worth:
"Tony, have a look outside and see what the weather's like. If it's raining we'll stay at home".
Here our decision as to what to do depends on what Tony tells us. This is a genuine conditional sentence and requires a future in the main clause.

Tony comes back and tells us it is raining. We can repeat the above sentence here, too, but the "if" no longer states a condition to be verified. As it's no longer a real conditional sentence we can use all kinds of tenses in the main clause:
If it's raining it doesn't matter, there's a good film on TV.
If it's raining, let's cook something nice for dinner.
If it's raining, it's just as well we didn't decide to go out.
If it's raining, why did they say it would be sunny?

Prower gives this example:


> "If it would save the situation, I'll stop doing it."


This is not a true conditional sentence and this explains the strange mixture of tenses. It means: "You think that, if I stopped, it would save the situation. OK, I believe you and I'll stop". The true conditional sequence is the part in blue.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Einstein said:


> [...]
> "If it would save the situation, I'll stop doing it."
> Prower gives this example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If it would save the situation, I'll stop doing it."
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a true conditional sentence and this explains the strange mixture of tenses. It means: "You think that, if I stopped, it would save the situation. OK, I believe you and I'll stop". The true conditional sequence is the part in blue.
Click to expand...

It's this last part where we part company, Einstein. I agree that there are many sentences containing if-clauses which are not intruducing true conditionals, and I agree with you that we shouldn't label them conditional sentences. However, Prower's sentence is, I think, a true conditional sentence, and I'll try to explain why.

A type 1 conditional sentence is saying that if a condition is met, something will follow.

The natural form of this sentence presents a sufficient condition; you have to alter the form slightly to make the condition necessary.

Is there a condition to be met in Prower's sentence? Certainly there is. The condition to be met is that it should be the case that his stopping would save the situation.

Now inevitably this involves a certain amount of corner-cutting. The speaker has to be assured by some means that it is the case, but this is true of most normal conditions too.

I doubt if people would question that _If you sail to America, I'll eat my hat_ is a conditional sentence. One might also ask, how will I know that you've sailed to America? The answer is by the normal means of evidence and persuasion. The speaker in Prower's sentence will need persuading, by the normal means of evidence and persuasion, that his stopping will save the situation; once he has been persuaded that the condition is met, he will stop.

The sentence isn't If I stopped, it would save the situation; that is another conditional sentence altogether. The sentence is, let's remind ourselves, *If it will save the situation, I'll stop doing it, *which is saying effectively If I can be persuaded that my stopping will save the situation, I'll stop doing it. I don't see how that can be represented as not being a conditional sentence.


----------



## Einstein

Thomas Tompion said:


> I doubt if people would question that _If you sail to America, I'll eat my hat_ is a conditional sentence. One might also ask, how will I know that you've sailed to America? The answer is by the normal means of evidence and persuasion. *No problem here; the means of verification are not a linguistic problem.*
> 
> *If it will save the situation, I'll stop doing it, *which is saying effectively If I can be persuaded that my stopping will save the situation, I'll stop doing it. I don't see how that can be represented as not being a conditional sentence.
> *Here you're insisting that "if" necessarily introduces a condition yet to be confirmed; it's not my interpretation. We very often use "if" when we understand or recognise a situation. If I say, "If you knew, why didn't you tell me?", I'm not waiting to find out whether or not you knew before asking my question; it's already clear. Again, if my wife says "I don't want to go out this evening", I can reply, "All right, if you want to stay at home let's see what's on TV". I know that she wants to stay at home, but I still say "if".*
> *"If it will save the situation..." doesn't mean, in my opinion, that maybe it will save the situation and when I have confirmation I'll stop doing it. It means, "All right, I understand that it will save the situation; this being so, I'll stop doing it". The decision is being taken now, not pending confirmation.*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

> Envoyé par *Thomas Tompion*
> I doubt if people would question that _If you sail to America, I'll eat my hat_ is a conditional sentence. One might also ask, how will I know that you've sailed to America? The answer is by the normal means of evidence and persuasion. *No problem here; the means of verification are not a linguistic problem.*
> 
> *If it will save the situation, I'll stop doing it, *which is saying effectively If I can be persuaded that my stopping will save the situation, I'll stop doing it. I don't see how that can be represented as not being a conditional sentence.
> *Here you're insisting that "if" necessarily introduces a condition yet to be confirmed; it's not my interpretation. We very often use "if" when we understand or recognise a situation. If I say, "If you knew, why didn't you tell me?", I'm not waiting to find out whether or not you knew before asking my question; it's already clear. Again, if my wife says "I don't want to go out this evening", I can reply, "All right, if you want to stay at home let's see what's on TV". I know that she wants to stay at home, but I still say "if".*
> *"If it will save the situation..." doesn't mean, in my opinion, that maybe it will save the situation and when I have confirmation I'll stop doing it. It means, "All right, I understand that it will save the situation; this being so, I'll stop doing it". The decision is being taken now, not pending confirmation.*


Many thanks for this, Einstein. 

I think we have a basic difference of interpretation of the sentence then:

I'm saying the sentence means

_If it can be shown that my stopping would save the situation, I'll stop,_

and you, if I understand you correctly, are saying that it means

_Given that it can be shown that my stopping would save the situation, I'll stop._

I'm dealing with a true conditional sentence, and you're dealing with the speaker's explanation for stopping.

Here are the two sentences from the OP again:

*If it will save the situation, I'll stop doing it. *

*If it saves the situation, I'll stop doing it. *

I can see that these could be taken as a conversational way for the speaker to explain why he will stop, but I can also see them as true conditional sentences, of the kind I've been trying to explain.

So I think that both explanations are possible.  I wonder if you think my explanation is out-of-the-question.


----------



## Einstein

Thomas Tompion said:


> *If it will save the situation, I'll stop doing it. *
> 
> *If it saves the situation, I'll stop doing it. *
> 
> I can see that these could be taken as a conversational way for the speaker to explain why he will stop, but I can also see them as true conditional sentences, of the kind I've been trying to explain.
> 
> So I think that both explanations are possible. I wonder if you think my explanation is out-of-the-question.


There's no dispute about the second sentence; it's a true conditional (if+present, future). I can't imagine a situation where I would say it, because the speaker would have to stop drinking in order to find out whether it could save the situation... but maybe that's not a grammatical problem.
For the first sentence I think your explanation is not out of the question, but far less likely.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Einstein said:


> There's no dispute about the second sentence; it's a true conditional (if+present, future). I can't imagine a situation where I would say it, because the speaker would have to stop drinking in order to find out whether it could save the situation... but maybe that's not a grammatical problem.
> For the first sentence I think your explanation is not out of the question, but far less likely.


How amusing.  I think we were born to disagree.

I can't see that there's much in it either way.

I suspect I was rather strictly brought up and I'd get rapped if I used _if_   to introduce anything other than a true condition, so my upbringing makes it hard for me to accept these non-conditional uses of _if_.  I can't hide a certain adverse feeling towards them either; I think _disdain_ might be too strong a word.


----------



## <Julia>

*If it will save the situation, I'll stop doing it* is a zero conditional.
"ZC  is used to describe sth that is generally true"  from"Developing Grammar in Context",  CUP
  it means that you know, that you can change the situation positively. It's natural and true.


----------



## Einstein

Thomas Tompion said:


> How amusing. I think we were born to disagree. *So it seems, but no hard feelings.*
> 
> I suspect I was rather strictly brought up and I'd get rapped if I used _if_ to introduce anything other than a true condition, so my upbringing makes it hard for me to accept these non-conditional uses of _if_. I can't hide a certain adverse feeling towards them either; I think _disdain_ might be too strong a word.
> *Well, if you hear two people quarrelling and one of them says, "If that's what you think, I'm leaving!" and walks out slamming the door, does that surprise you? Do you run after him, shouting, "But you didn't wait to see if it was what he thought!"?*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

<Julia> said:


> *If it will save the situation, I'll stop doing it* is a zero conditional.
> "ZC is used to describe sth that is generally true" from"Developing Grammar in Context", CUP
> it means that you know, that you can change the situation positively. It's natural and true.


The zero conditional, as I understand it, is used to express things which are generally true, like the truths of science or nature, e.g. If you go out in the rain, you get wet.

A feature of the zero conditional, as I know it, is that both the if-clause and the main clause are in the present tense.

Both the if clause and the main clause appear to be in the future here, and my saving the situation isn't a generally discovered condition of my stopping doing it, so I do not see how this can be a zero conditional.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

> Envoyé par *Thomas Tompion*
> How amusing. I think we were born to disagree. *So it seems, but no hard feelings.*
> 
> I suspect I was rather strictly brought up and I'd get rapped if I used _if_ to introduce anything other than a true condition, so my upbringing makes it hard for me to accept these non-conditional uses of _if_. I can't hide a certain adverse feeling towards them either; I think _disdain_ might be too strong a word.
> *Well, if you hear two people quarrelling and one of them says, "If that's what you think, I'm leaving!" and walks out slamming the door, does that suprise you? Do you run after him, shouting, "But you didn't wait to see if it was what he thought!"?*


No, I don't. I just deplore his poor English as well as his bad temper.

I'm not saying that I don't know that people say these things.


----------



## Einstein

Thomas Tompion said:


> The zero conditional, as I understand it, is used to express things which are generally true, like the truths of science or nature, e.g. If you go out in the rain, you get wet.
> 
> A feature of the zero conditional, as I know it, is that both the if-clause and the main clause are in the present tense.
> 
> Both the if clause and the main clause appear to be in the future here, and my saving the situation isn't a generally discovered condition of my stopping doing it, so I do not see how this can be a zero conditional.


 As you see, we don't disagree about everything!


----------



## <Julia>

Thomas Tompion said:


> The zero conditional, as I understand it, is used to express things which are generally true, like the truths of science or nature, e.g. If you go out in the rain, you get wet.
> 
> A feature of the zero conditional, as I know it, is that both the if-clause and the main clause are in the present tense.
> 
> Both the if clause and the main clause appear to be in the future here, and my saving the situation isn't a generally discovered condition of my stopping doing it, so I do not see how this can be a zero conditional.


That's probably true)
However,
 ZC describes sth that is generally true. This is not only the truths of science.
 If I eat ice cream I get ill is also a zero conditional.

 However, we can use if +will in these following cases:
1)in the meaning "if you insist" - If you will put off doing your homework, then of course you'll get bad marks.
2) when it is part of a polite invitation or request- If you'll open the door, I'll bring these in.
3) modal meaning - if it *will* help, I'll stop doing it.- will help has a modal meaning and should be stressed when you prononce the sentence. If it WILL REALY HELP I'll stop doing....
So, the difference, in my opinion, is in the modal meaning, future form in both parts of a conditional gives a special modal meaning


----------



## Prower

Julia is it your personal interpretation or have you read about _this _zero-conditional in a book or something?
I agree on the modal meaning but I am confused with the zero-conditional of yours. By the way with what would you substitute WILL? Should?

If it should help, I will stop doing it.???


----------



## panjandrum

Conditional  (zero): Why is it called that?

The terminology appear to be current in some circles.
More in Wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_sentence
_The "zero" conditional is formed with both clauses in the present tense.  This construction is similar across many languages. It is used to  express a certainty, a universal statement, a law of science, etc.:

_Julia's malaise, which causes her to become ill if she eats ice cream, is no doubt just as predictable.


----------



## Prower

That's what I also think. P SIMPLE +P SIMPLE but not FUTURE SIMPLE + FUTURE SIMPLE


----------



## <Julia>

Sorry fot the confusion! Panjandrum and Prower you are absolutely right about the zero conditional. My fault!
But the modal meaning is right. Hope you agree)))


----------



## Thomas Tompion

<Julia> said:


> Sorry fot the confusion! Panjandrum and Prower you are absolutely right about the zero conditional. My fault!
> But the modal meaning is right. Hope you agree)))


 Hello Julia.

I find it hard to know if I agree, because I'm not sure what you are calling the _modal meaning_.


----------



## Prower

As for the modal meaning in this kind of construction, I could come up with the following example.

*I think, if you will exuse me, I will get some sleep. (G. Greene)*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Prower said:


> As for the modal meaning in this kind of construction, I could come up with the following example.
> 
> *I think, if you will exuse me, I will get some sleep. (G. Greene)*


 I just want to be clear what is meant by a modal meaning, here.  Does it mean any use of _if,_ when it doesn't mean _whether, _to introduce something other than a condition?


----------



## Prower

To summarize this thread I would say that the only thing which I am still confused with is whether in this sentence  (*If it will save the situation, I'll stop doing it. *) the *it *in the first part equals the action *(stop doing it) in the second part of the sentence*.

TT has been trying to explain that it can be not only so. 



Thomas Tompion said:


> The structure of the sentence is _If it *is* the case that *Y *follows_ (or _will follow_, or _would follow_) _from *a*_, _then I *will *do *a*_.
> 
> The tenses in the subordinate clause are not part of the main structure of the if-clause. The key tense from that point of view is the present (_is_) at the start.
> 
> The problem lies in the fact that we usually leave out the _it is the case that_, so it looks as though the future or present or conditional is the important verb in the if-clause.
> 
> _If (it* is* (present) the case that) the situation will (or would) be saved by my stopping doing it, I *will *(future) stop doing it._


_

*But why can't we say ?*

(If it* is*_ (present) _the case that) the situation *is *saved by my stopping doing it, I *will *_(future)_ stop doing it_.

============
I am more inclined to think that the implied action in the first part (i.e. - *it*) should mean the action mentioned in the second part (stop doing). (It=stop doing)

I see as the *it* in the first part refers to the result of the action which appears in the second part of the sentence.

If *it *(what is it? - My stopping doing it) will save the situation, I will stop doing it. *OR*

(If my stopping doing it will save the situation, I will stop doing it.)

It seems to me that if *it *implies something else in the first part (not the action mentioned in the second part) then we SHALL use

*Present Simple + Future Simple*

As there is no point in switching to double FUTURE (FS+FS) unless int his specific situation.


----------



## Prower

Thomas Tompion said:


> I just want to be clear what is meant by a modal meaning, here.  Does it mean any use of _if,_ when it doesn't mean _whether, _to introduce something other than a condition?


I don't know if this issue falls into the discussed matter and am not sure that we could tackle this matter properly. 
I don't have much to say about this modal meaning, Julia just reminded me about its existence.

I think it is something like - *Will you come in? Will you excuse me?*

And when used with *if* it looks like a conditional sentence and it seems like we use double FUTURE here.


----------

