# she <wouldn't have answered> when I <called> her tomorrow either.



## JJXR

Hello to all,

Thanks for reading my post.


*Sample sentence:*

If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't have answered* when I *called* her tomorrow either.

*Question:*

Do the bolded tenses that I've used work in my sentence?


Thanks a lot for any comments, corrections or suggestions!

Regards,
JJXR


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm not clear that they do, JJXR.

If you said 'if I called her tomorrow' rather than 'when I called her tomorrow', I'd have no objection.

If you changed 'tomorrow' for 'the next day', I'd be happy with that too.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, TT.

But using "if" instead of "when" implies that I'm not sure whether I will call her tomorrow or not. On the contrary, using "when" implies that I know I will call her and that she will answer. I wonder if "when" would work for you if I used "call" instead of "called", like this:

_If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't have answered* when I *call* her tomorrow either._


----------



## DonnyB

JJXR said:


> But using "if" instead of "when" implies that I'm not sure whether I will call her tomorrow or not. On the contrary, using "when" implies that I know I will call her and that she will answer. I wonder if "when" would work for you if I used "call" instead of "called", like this:
> 
> _If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't have answered* when I *call* her tomorrow either._


The original version works for me with either "when" or "if" depending on whether you're definitely going to call her tomorrow or not.

But if you change it and use the present tense, then in my opinion you've got to rewrite the whole thing:
If/since she *hasn't answered* my call today, she *won't answer* when I *call* her tomorrow either.

PS: Haven't we analyzed this sentence of yours before: it sounds awfully familiar?


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the explanation, DonnyB.


DonnyB said:


> PS: Haven't we analyzed this sentence of yours before: it sounds awfully familiar?


The sentence may sound familiar, but still it is not the same sentence.


----------



## DonnyB

JJXR said:


> Thanks for the explanation, DonnyB.
> 
> The sentence may sound familiar, but still it is not the same sentence.


Even if you *had not denied* that you *had cloned* your sentence, I *would still have recognized* it and *answered* your question anyway.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JJXR said:


> If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't have answered* when I *call* her tomorrow either


There's a terrible jumble of tenses and time indications here, which would leave me puzzled.

I wonder if you mean:
_
If she hadn't answered my call today, she wouldn't answer my call tomorrow.
If she didn't answer my call today, she won't answer my call tomorrow._

Your initial sentence - _If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't have answered* when I *called* her tomorrow either _- makes me wonder if you realize that she did answer my call today.  What's that *either* indicating?


----------



## JJXR

Thanks DonnyB and TT. 


Thomas Tompion said:


> Your initial sentence - _If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't have answered* when I *called* her tomorrow either _- makes me wonder if you realize that she did answer my call today. What's that *either* indicating?


In the sentence as it stands, as I see it, her answering my call yesterday and her answering my call tomorrow are connected in that one doesn't go without the other: she did answer my call today, and so, by implication, she will answer my call tomorrow. It's all or nothing. That's why I've used the word "either". But I think the sentence works without the word "either" as well. What's important is to include the conditional perfect tense "wouldn't have answered" because that makes it clear that the speaker has an all or nothing scenario in mind.


Thomas Tompion said:


> If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't answer* my call tomorrow.


What is the difference between the quoted sentence and the sentence of post #1?

I understand the quoted sentence as not necessarily meaning that she did answer the call in the real world. The speaker might be imagining an alternative universe in which the call had been answered. Based on that, they are speculating. I would paraphrase the quoted sentence this way:

_If it were the case that she hadn't answered my call today, she wouldn't answer my call tomorrow._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JJXR said:


> What is the difference between the quoted sentence and the sentence of post #1?
> 
> I understand the quoted sentence as not necessarily meaning that she did answer the call in the real world.


This is what I wondered.  _If she hadn't answer my call_ means that she did answer my call, in this or any other world.
_
If she didn't answer my call..._ leaves the question (of whether she answered or not) open.  Perhaps this is what you mean then.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, TT.


JJXR said:


> If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't have answered* when I *called* her tomorrow either.





Thomas Tompion said:


> This is what I wondered. _If she hadn't answer my call_ means that she did answer my call, in this or any other world.
> _
> If she didn't answer my call..._ leaves the question (of whether she answered or not) open. Perhaps this is what you mean then.


By the sentence of post #1 I want to convey that she did answer my call today.

But now I wonder what the difference is between the following two sentences:

_1. If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't answer* my call tomorrow.
2. If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't have answered* my call tomorrow._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't answer* my call tomorrow.


JJXR said:


> I understand the quoted sentence as not necessarily meaning that she did answer the call in the real world.[...]



If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't have answered* when I *called* her tomorrow either. (Sentence in Post #1)


JJXR said:


> By the sentence of post #1 I want to convey that she did answer my call today.[...]



I'm left wondering what you want to convey.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks TT.


Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm left wondering what you want to convey.


This is what I want to convey (but I'm puzzled as to the choice of tense here):

Since she answered my call today, and she will answer my call tomorrow. But if she hadn't answered my call today, she *wouldn't have answered/wouldn't answer* my call tomorrow.

EDIT: I should have written the above sentence without the word "and":

Since she answered my call today, *and* she will answer my call tomorrow. But if she hadn't...


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JJXR said:


> Thanks TT.
> 
> This is what I want to convey (but I'm puzzled as to the choice of tense here):
> 
> Since she answered my call today, and she will answer my call tomorrow. But if she hadn't answered my call today, she *wouldn't have answered/wouldn't answer* my call tomorrow.


I think you mean: _If_ (ie. given that)_ she answered my call today, she will answer my call tomorrow, but if she hadn't answered my call today, I wouldn't have expected her to answer it tomorrow._

I think the thought is too complicated to leave to the tense choice in the sentence alone.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the explanation, TT.


Thomas Tompion said:


> I think you mean: _If_ (ie. given that)_ she answered my call today, she will answer my call tomorrow, but if she hadn't answered my call today, I wouldn't have expected her to answer it tomorrow._


Yes, exactly. That's what I mean.


Thomas Tompion said:


> If she hadn't answered my call today, she *wouldn't answer* my call tomorrow.


Anyway, I thought the quoted sentence could be used in the context that I'd come up with in post #12.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JJXR said:


> Thanks for the explanation, TT.
> 
> Yes, exactly. That's what I mean.
> 
> Anyway, I thought the quoted sentence could be used in the context that I'd come up with in post #12.


I think if you said that, people wouldn't know what you were wishing to convey.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks TT.


Thomas Tompion said:


> I think you mean: _If_ (ie. given that)_ she answered my call today, she will answer my call tomorrow, but if she hadn't answered my call today, I wouldn't have expected her to answer it tomorrow._


Does "when I called her tomorrow" work in your proposed sentence:

_Given that she answered my call today, she will answer my call tomorrow, but if she hadn't answered my call today, I wouldn't have expected her to answer it *when I called her tomorrow*._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

_


JJXR said:



			Thanks TT.

Does "when I called her tomorrow" work in your proposed sentence:

Given that she answered my call today, she will answer my call tomorrow, but if she hadn't answered my call today, I wouldn't have expected her to answer it *when I called her tomorrow*.

Click to expand...

_I think it's possible, but I'd avoid it, as muddling.

I think the III/II conditional might be better than my original choice (in #13).  It is appropriate for considering the present result of an an imagined or real event in the past, which is what we seem to have here.  Your choice of the word 'tomorrow' and 'today' fixes the time in a present between the two telephone calls.

So I'd prefer this:_ If_ (ie. given that)_ she answered my call today, she will answer my call tomorrow, but if she hadn't answered my call today, I wouldn't expect her to answer one tomorrow._


----------



## JJXR

Thanks a lot for the explanation, TT.


JJXR said:


> If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't have answered* when I *called* her tomorrow either.


I wonder what other people think about the bolded tenses and the underlined words "when" and "either" used in the original sentence in post #1. Thanks in advance.


----------



## DonnyB

JJXR said:


> I wonder what other people think about the bolded tenses and the underlined words "when" and "either" used in the original sentence in post #1. Thanks in advance.


That works for me, as I indicated in post #4:


DonnyB said:


> The original version works for me with either "when" or "if" depending on whether you're definitely going to call her tomorrow or not.


but only because you've explained the all-or-nothing scenario in post #8:


JJXR said:


> In the sentence as it stands, as I see it, her answering my call yesterday and her answering my call tomorrow are connected in that one doesn't go without the other: she did answer my call today, and so, by implication, she will answer my call tomorrow. It's all or nothing. That's why I've used the word "either". But I think the sentence works without the word "either" as well. What's important is to include the conditional perfect tense "wouldn't have answered" because that makes it clear that the speaker has an all or nothing scenario in mind.


which I'd remembered from a previous thread using a similar scenario.  Without that context I think "either" sounds odd, because it's otherwise not logically clear what the connection is between the two events.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, DonnyB.


DonnyB said:


> but only because you've explained the all-or-nothing scenario in post #8


Why would one need an explanation? In my opinion, that is the only scenario that can be envisaged given the tenses used, or am I wrong?


DonnyB said:


> which I'd remembered from a previous thread using a similar scenario. Without that context I think "either" sounds odd, because it's otherwise not logically clear what the connection is between the two events.


I think "either" is not essential, but it is not wrong to use it to connect the two events there.


----------



## DonnyB

JJXR said:


> Why would one need an explanation? In my opinion, that is the only scenario that can be envisaged given the tenses used, or am I wrong?
> 
> I think "either" is not essential, but it is not wrong to use it to connect the two events there.


Because in real life, that sentence would not exist without some sort of contextual background.

As it stands, it prompts the question "Why not?"  A more _normal_ scenario is: "If she hadn't answered my call today she'd have answered it tomorrow _instead_".  Perhaps she was busy today, or didn't hear the phone ring, etc. etc.  What most people do, if they ring and don't get an answer, is try ringing again another time. 

Your scenario of not getting an answer on _either_ day could well be interpreted as implying that she doesn't want to speak to you, but that's effectively ruled out by the counterfactual nature of the conditional: she did answer your call today.

What I'm trying to say here is that we devise the scenario and the meaning that we want to put across, and then choose the tenses to match. We don't leave our reader or listener to try and do it the other way round.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the explanation, DonnyB.

Does "wouldn't be going to answer" work instead of "wouldn't have answered" in the two sentences below:

_1 If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't be going to answer* when I *called* her tomorrow either._
_
2. If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't be going to answer* if I *called* her tomorrow either._


----------



## DonnyB

JJXR said:


> Does "wouldn't be going to answer" work instead of "wouldn't have answered" in the two sentences below:
> 
> _1 If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't be going to answer* when I *called* her tomorrow either.
> 
> 2. If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't be going to answer* if I *called* her tomorrow either._


That doesn't work for me at all. 

I don't really understand what "she wouldn't be going to answer" is designed to mean, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone use it.  It could be taken to mean _she would refuse to answer _but I'm dubious about whether that would make logical sense there.


----------



## JJXR

Thank you.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hello JJXR,

I know you've asked me not to 'help' you further, but there's an elementary point you seem to be missing.

Here's an uncomplicated explanation of the if-clause of the third conditional: The Third Conditional

It talks about the past. It's used to describe a situation that didn't happen, and to imagine the result of this situation.


If she *had studied*, she *would have passed* the exam (but, really we know she didn't study and so she didn't pass)
If I *hadn't eaten* so much, I *wouldn't have felt* sick (but I did eat a lot, and so I did feel sick).
In the first case *If she had studied* means that she didn't study.
In the second case *If I hadn't eaten so much* means that I did eat so much.

The text (in brown) also points out these facts.

So when you say _If she *hadn't answered* my call today, _you imply that *she did answer my call today*_.  
_
I promise not to 'help' you further.


----------



## JJXR

Hello TT,

Thanks for the explanation.


Thomas Tompion said:


> there's an elementary point you seem to be missing.


I think I'm not missing that point. Rather, I'm looking for patterns of how one can describe a situation (consequence) that will not happen in the future because something didn't happen in the past. By the way, I like the solution you came up with: the words "would have expected to + verb". That pattern seems to be applicable in most cases.


Thomas Tompion said:


> I know you've asked me not to 'help' you further





Thomas Tompion said:


> I promise not to 'help' you further.


I apologize. You misunderstood. I didn't ask you not to help me anymore. I just wanted to see what other people thought. I asked for additional comments because in my experience people's opinions differ when discussing the choice of tense in conditional sentences.


----------



## Glenfarclas

JJXR said:


> Rather, I'm looking for patterns of how one can describe a situation (consequence) that will not happen in the future because something didn't happen in the past.



Well, why didn't you say so 20 posts ago? You want to describe a consequence, not state a hypothetical.  You shouldn't use "if" at all.  Instead, say "*Since *she *didn't *answer my call yesterday, she *won't *answer when I call her tomorrow."


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, Glenfarclas.


Glenfarclas said:


> Well, why didn't you say so 20 posts ago? You want to describe a consequence, not state a hypothetical. You shouldn't use "if" at all. Instead, say "*Since *she *didn't *answer my call yesterday, she *won't *answer when I call her tomorrow."


Sorry, I've made a mistake. I should have said:


JJXR said:


> I'm looking for patterns of how one can describe a situation (consequence) that *will* *not* happen in the future because something *didn't happen* *happened* in the past.


TT's solution works in this case:


Thomas Tompion said:


> _If_ (ie. given that)_ she answered my call today, she will answer my call tomorrow, but if she hadn't answered my call today, I wouldn't have expected her to answer it tomorrow._





Thomas Tompion said:


> _If_ (ie. given that)_ she answered my call today, she will answer my call tomorrow, but if she hadn't answered my call today, I wouldn't expect her to answer one tomorrow._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

_


JJXR said:



			TT's solution works in this case:
		
Click to expand...

 _So does Glenfarclas's in post #27.  They make the same point in an almost identical way.  Glenfarclas's_ since_ amounts to the same thing as my _given that_, and both are followed by the simple past.

There's another point I don't wish to make more than twice in the thread: _if she hadn't answered..._ implies she did answer today, so you can't say at the end_ she wouldn't answer tomorrow either_, because the _either_ implies that she didn't answer today.

That's why I said earlier that the logic was jumbled.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks TT.


Thomas Tompion said:


> So does Glenfarclas's in post #27. They make the same point in an almost identical way. Glenfarclas's_ since_ amounts to the same thing as my _given that_, and both are followed by the simple past.





Glenfarclas said:


> "*Since *she *didn't *answer my call yesterday, she *won't *answer when I call her tomorrow."


Glenfarclas's sentence implies that she didn't answer the call. So, if we express this the way you did in post #17, we get the following bolded tenses:
_
If_ (ie. given that)_ she *didn't answer* my call today, she *won't answer* my call tomorrow, but if she *had answered* my call today, I *would expect* her to answer one tomorrow._

The way you put it in post #17 is different in that the sentence implies that in fact she did answer:


Thomas Tompion said:


> _If_ (ie. given that)_ she *answered* my call today, she *will answer* my call tomorrow, but if she *hadn't answered* my call today, I *wouldn't expect* her to answer one tomorrow._


----------



## JJXR

DonnyB said:


> The original version works for me with either "when" or "if" depending on whether you're definitely going to call her tomorrow or not.


Do the tenses in the sentences below work for you:

_1. If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't answer* if I *called* her tomorrow either.

2. If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't answer* if I *were to call* her tomorrow either._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JJXR said:


> Do the tenses in the sentences below work for you:
> 
> _1. If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't answer* if I *called* her tomorrow either.
> 
> 2. If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't answer* if I *were to call* her tomorrow either._


You still haven't grasped that 'if she hadn't answered my call today' means that *she did answer my call* today.

The *either* implies that she didn't answer my call today, so both sentences are logical nonsenses.

I've made all three of these points several times now, I think.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, TT.

Do the tenses work without the word "either":


JJXR said:


> _1. If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't answer* if I *called* her tomorrow *either*.
> 
> 2. If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't answer* if I *were to call* her tomorrow *either*._


----------



## DonnyB

JJXR said:


> Do the tenses in the sentences below work for you:
> 
> _1. If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't answer* if I *called* her tomorrow either.
> 
> 2. If she *hadn't answered* my call today, she *wouldn't answer* if I *were to call* her tomorrow either._


This has got some undeniably convoluted logic, but I still think you need a conditional perfect "wouldn't have answered" for your main verb.  As I see it, the possibility of her answering tomorrow (or not as the case may be) is tied in with the call you made today (as you explained in post #8). Since that's a _past_ event in that she presumably did answer today but you're depicting a scenario in which she didn't, the possibility of her answering tomorrow no longer exists in your alternative scenario.

 I suppose you could argue that the tense in the final if-clause should be "... if I were to have called her" or even "... if I had called her", but I'll settle for "... if I were to call her" as in version (2).


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the explanation, DonnyB.

If I change the word order a little bit, does your preference regarding the choice of tense remain the same:

_If she *hadn't answered* my call today, and if I *were to call* her tomorrow, she *wouldn't have answered*._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JJXR said:


> [...]
> 
> _If she *hadn't answered* my call today, and if I *were to call* her tomorrow, she *wouldn't have answered*._


Back at post #14 you said that you wanted your sentence to mean _If_ (ie. given that)_ she answered my call today, she will answer my call tomorrow, but if she hadn't answered my call today, I wouldn't have expected her to answer it tomorrow._

We seem rather far from that now.

Have you changed what you want to say?  If so, don't we need a new thread?


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, TT.


Thomas Tompion said:


> Have you changed what you want to say? If so, don't we need a new thread?


But the sentence in post #35 seems to convey what I want to say, only in different words. In addition to that, we've been discussing "if" vs. "when" since the beginning of this thread. They have become part of it. I haven't changed the structure of the original sentence much, so I think the question I've asked is part of this thread.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JJXR said:


> Thanks for the response, TT.
> 
> But the sentence in post #35 seems to convey what I want to say, only in different words. In addition to that, we've been discussing "if" vs. "when" since the beginning of this thread. They have become part of it. I haven't changed the structure of the original sentence much, so I think the question I've asked is part of this thread.


Have you changed what you want to say? or is it still _If_ (ie. given that)_ she answered my call today, she will answer my call tomorrow, but if she hadn't answered my call today, I wouldn't have expected her to answer it tomorrow?_

If it's changed, I wonder in what way it has changed.  So much here is vague that it's hard to help you.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks TT.


Thomas Tompion said:


> Have you changed what you want to say? or is it still _If_ (ie. given that)_ she answered my call today, she will answer my call tomorrow, but if she hadn't answered my call today, I wouldn't have expected her to answer it tomorrow?_
> 
> If it's changed, I wonder in what way it has changed. So much here is vague that it's hard to help you.


It hasn't changed. I still want to express the same, but I want to do it as in post #35.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JJXR said:


> Thanks TT.
> 
> It hasn't changed. I still want to express the same, but I want to do it as in post #35.


It cannot be done and we've told you why.


----------



## DonnyB

JJXR said:


> Thanks for the explanation, DonnyB.
> 
> If I change the word order a little bit, does your preference regarding the choice of tense remain the same:
> 
> _If she *hadn't answered* my call today, and if I *were to call* her tomorrow, she *wouldn't have answered*._


You've now, _I think_, created some sort of clash between the two if-clauses, but I can't put my finger on exactly why.  What I suspect you need to do to make that work is to get rid of one of them.  What you _could_ try is:
Provided that she *hadn't answered* my call today, if I *were to call* her tomorrow, she *wouldn't answer*.

I must admit I don't like it much, though.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks DonnyB and TT.


----------

