# 2nd Conditional



## Tenacious Learner

Hi teachers,
Despite how you can call the conditionals, to me this is the explanation about the example in the 2nd conditional. Does it match?

*2nd Conditional*
If my wife had a cold, I would catch it.
*Explanation:*
The person is saying that in the case that his wife had a cold  (in that imaginary situation) , he would catch it. But the truth is that his wife doesn’t have a cold, so he won’t have one either. The result is improbable because the situation is imaginary.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Tenacious Learner said:


> But the truth is that his wife doesn’t have a cold, so he won’t have one either. The result is improbable because the situation is imaginary.


There's just a slight problem here, TL.

If his wife had a cold, he would catch it.  But that doesn't mean he couldn't catch one from someone else.  So the fact that his wife doesn't have a cold doesn't mean that he won't have one either.  We are not saying that she is his sole source of colds.

The result might be highly likely if she catches a cold, so I don't think it's true to say that the result is improbable.  What the second condition tells us is that in the event of the condition's being met, the result would follow.  I suspect that you want to suggest that inherent in the 2nd conditional is the idea that the condition is not likely to be met.  I'm not sure this is true, though I do think that the contingency seems less likely in the 2nd than in the 1st conditional.

I was pleased to see you avoiding the word 'unreal' much loved by some people.


----------



## Tenacious Learner

Thomas Tompion said:


> There's just a slight problem here, TL.
> 
> If his wife had a cold, he would catch it. But that doesn't mean he couldn't catch one from someone else. So the fact that his wife doesn't have a cold doesn't mean that he won't have one either. We are not saying that she is his sole source of colds.


Hi Thomas,
That's correct, his wife is not the only sole source of his colds, but according to the example, just the example it does; under that imaginary situation, doesn't it?



Thomas Tompion said:


> I was pleased to see you avoiding the word 'unreal' much loved by some people.


Well, reading and reading as many webpages and books I could about that, I have changed the word "unreal". It's not a very good one.
As a proverb says, "When you're wrong admit it: when you're right shut up". 

TL


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Tenacious Learner said:


> That's correct, his wife is not the only sole source of his colds, but according to the example, just the example it does; under that imaginary situation, doesn't it?


I'm afraid I don't think it does.

If you wished to give that meaning, you would have to produce a sentence like this:

_If he caught a cold, he would catch it only from her._


----------



## karlalou

> If my wife had a cold, I would catch it.


I think it's in a way a word expressing their closeness, isn't it? They are that much close to each other.

If it's "If my wife has a cold, I catch it", this should be saying 'things between us is always like that', a general fact.

I feel "If my wife has a cold, I would catch it" is the natural thing to say, but am I right?


----------



## Dale Texas

karlalou said:


> I think it's in a way a word expressing their closeness, isn't it? They are that much close to each other.
> 
> If it's "If my wife has a cold, I catch it", this should be saying 'things between us is always like that', a general fact.
> 
> I feel "If my wife has a cold, I would catch it" is the natural thing to say, but am I right?



Close but not exactly.

"If my wife *has* a cold, I catch it" is not really a conditional but a somewhat slangy and truncated-sentence way of converting "If" to mean "Whenever."

It's equivalent to "_Whenever_ my wife has a cold I _always_ catch it."  As you say that is a statement of a general fact involving a reality between the two of you and has nothing to do with a conditional situation.

I would rewrite your second sentence as:

"If my _had _a cold (a presently *imagined *situation,she doesn't have one *now*), I _would probably_ catch it/I _would be sure to_ catch it. (At some imagined point in some future.)


----------



## e2efour

Dale Texas said:


> "If my wife *has* a cold, I catch it" is not really a conditional but a somewhat slangy and truncated-sentence way of converting "If" to mean "Whenever."
> 
> It's equivalent to "_Whenever_ my wife has a cold I _always_ catch it."  As you say that is a statement of a general fact involving a reality between the two of you and has nothing to do with a conditional situation.


My understand of zero conditionals (not that I approve of this terminology) is that this is one example.
I agree, however, that the meaning is _whenever she has a cold. _Or _I always get a cold every time my wife has one.
_
The sentence in #5 (_If my wife has a cold, I would catch it_), however, seems rather suspect.


----------



## wandle

The clause 'if my wife had a cold', followed by a clause with 'would', clearly indicates that she does not at present have a cold.

In other words, the truth of the condition is denied. The condition is therefore what is known as a closed or, to use the traditional term, unreal condition.

It is a classic example for the grammatical usage of the term 'unreal', as defined by the OED (quoted in an earlier thread).


----------



## wandle

'If my wife has a cold, I catch it' is a good example of an open present conditional (the truth of the condition is not denied or doubted) and 'If my wife had a cold, I caught it' is likewise a good example of an open past conditional.


----------



## Vronsky

Dale Texas said:


> I would rewrite your second sentence as:
> 
> "If my _had _a cold (a presently *imagined *situation,she doesn't have one *now*), I _would probably_ catch it/I _would be sure to_ catch it. (At some imagined point in some future.)


But you changed the condition from type 1 ("If my wife has a cold") to type 2 ("If my wife had a cold") thereby you changed the condition from real to hypothetical. If the condition remains unchanged, I would rewrite the sentence as

If my wife has a cold, it would be no surprise if I (will) have a cold too.​
Here we have the real condition "If my wife has a cold" and the possible result "I (will) have a cold."


----------



## karlalou

Right, but I just see that
"If my wife has a cold, I catch it"
is clearer and thus should be more natural with an adverb like 'probably', or as 'be sure to' like Dale Texas is saying.

"If my wife has a cold, I would catch it" should be saying "She might have got a cold that I can get it from her sooner or later". Suspecting like e2efour is saying. Worrying for that. I think it's a common scene in the real life.

So, these belong to, according to what I've heard, the 1st conditional, so not hypothesis.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

karlalou said:


> Suspecting like e2efour is saying. Worrying for that. I think it's a common scene in the real life.


I've little idea what you mean to say here, I'm afraid.

I agree with E2E4 that _If my wife has a cold, I would catch it_ is not correct grammar.  What sort of conditional sentence do you think it is?


----------



## karlalou

Oh, I've heard that the tenses can be mixed; one in the if-clause, and another in the main clause, but this case can not?

If my wife has a cold, I would catch it.
The if-clause is a simple condition, but getting the cold from her is not the inevitable result, and that is why the main clause has 'would', I believe.


----------



## SevenDays

Tenacious Learner said:


> Hi teachers,
> Despite how you can call the conditionals, to me this is the explanation about the example in the 2nd conditional. Does it match?
> 
> *2nd Conditional*
> If my wife had a cold, I would catch it.
> *Explanation:*
> The person is saying that in the case that his wife had a cold  (in that imaginary situation) , he would catch it. But the truth is that his wife doesn’t have a cold, so he won’t have one either. The result is improbable because the situation is imaginary.
> 
> Thanks in advance.



All conditional sentences are _imaginary_; after all, they all start with "if," a word that introduces a _hypothetical_ scenario. The "if x then y" conditionals establish a relationship between a _condition_ and a _result,_ with lots and lots of _possible_ combinations in their wording depending on the _nature_ of the condition, the_ likelihood_ of the result, the _attitude_ of the speaker, etc. All these are possible, depending on the intended meaning (though some may be less possible among some speakers, or even unacceptable):

_If my wife has a cold, I catch it
If my wife has a cold, I will catch it
If my wife has a cold, I would catch it
If my wife has a cold, I might catch it
If my wife had a cold, I would catch it
If my wife had a cold, I will catch it_
and on and on
And because these are hypothetical situations, actually having or not having a cold is irrelevant (just as it's irrelevant whether you eventually catch or don't catch a cold).

Dividing conditional sentence into _zero conditional, first conditional, second conditional, third conditional_, and _mixed conditionals,_ might be popular in schools and textbooks, but linguists will tell you that it's an arbitrary arrangement that doesn't reflect the way language actually works. If you are teaching conditionals this way (because you have to), I'd say make sure that your examples clearly fit into one of those four types (and keep in mind that it's all arbitrary to begin with). In other words, don't get caught up with pseudo-conditionals, or those "if" conditionals that don't speak to "cause and effect:" _If you have a cold, there's some medicine in the cabinet_ (the medicine is in the cabinet, whether or not you have a cold; in other words, having a cold is not a condition for the medicine to _be_ in the cabinet).


----------



## Vronsky

SevenDays said:


> All these are possible, depending on the intended meaning (though some may be less possible among some speakers):
> ...
> If my wife has a cold, I would catch it


In this thread, the three native speakers of English said that it doesn't work, but you know better.


----------



## SevenDays

Vronsky said:


> In this thread, the three native speakers of English said that it doesn't work, but you know better.



It's not about knowing better.
_If my wife has a cold, I would catch it_ can simply mean that I'm _resigned _to the fact that I'll end up getting a cold too, or it might mean _intent _on my part, in that I want to catch her cold (so I can take days off work).


----------



## wandle

Vronsky said:


> In this thread, the three native speakers of English said that it doesn't work, but you know better.


Make that four. It is a mismatch of open and closed clauses.

It is perfectly true that there are other conditionals besides the 'zero, one, two, three' classification, but they must observe correct matching of clauses.

'If my wife has a cold, I catch it' is a correct open (or real) present conditional.
'If my wife had a cold, I would catch it' is a correct closed (or unreal) present conditional.

'If my wife catches a cold, I will catch it' is a correct open (or real) future conditional
'If my wife caught a cold, I would catch it' is a correct closed (or unreal) future conditional ('type 2').

'If my wife has a cold, I would catch it' is not a correct conditional of any kind.

'If my wife has a cold, I will catch it' is a correct conditional which combines an open present condition with a future result.


----------



## karlalou

These mixtures might be inconvenient to explain the grammar, but we are confused when confined in only to the logic and get blinded from the reality. What we really want from the natives is the affirmation on real uses. 
So, is this not grammatical?


> Life-threatening allergic reactions from vaccines are very rare. If they *do *occur, it *would *be within a few minutes to a few hours after the vaccination. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)


----------



## wandle

karlalou said:


> So, is this not grammatical?


It ought to be: 'if they do occur, it will be ...'


----------



## Vronsky

wandle said:


> It ought to be: 'if they do occur, it will be ...'


Why not "they will be"?


----------



## wandle

'It' is regularly used in expressions of time.

'It was nine o'clock when we got home'. 'It will be a couple of hours before the job is finished'.


----------



## karlalou

wandle said:


> It ought to be: 'if they do occur, it will be ...'


Doesn't it change the meaning?


----------



## SevenDays

karlalou said:


> These mixtures might be inconvenient to explain the grammar, but we are confused when confined in only to the logic and get blinded from the reality. What we really want from the natives is the affirmation on real uses.
> So, is this not grammatical?



Of course it's grammatical, but that doesn't mean everyone will use it (as you've seen in this thread)._ If they do occur, it *will* be within a few minutes to a few hours_ is one of those conditional sentences that neatly fits into one of the IV conditional types (I don't know _which_ one, because I don't think of conditional sentences in those arbitrary terms). As written, the sentence makes an _assertion_ that's quite specific; it's a _prediction_ of what _will_ happen within the given time frame. But suppose you don't want to be that _certain_, that _absolute_; suppose you wanted to leave a little _wiggle room_, just in case the allergic reactions occur outside that time frame, what then? Well, that's what modal verbs do: they _attenuate _the message. _If they do occur, it *would* be within a few minutes to a few hours _speaks of "possibility" and stops short of making an outright prediction.

But there's another perspective. In linguistics, there's something called _*actualization*_, which is basically the physical or actual expression/manifestation of an abstract concept. _I ride a bike_ is an abstract (non-actualized) concept that becomes _actualized_ the moment I get on my bike and start pedaling down the road. Similarly, "life-threatening allergic reactions" is an _abstract, non-actualized _concept (no one is _actually_ having an allergic reaction at the moment you are reading the CDC article), and that "non-actualization" is what "would" refers to in _If they do occur, it *would* be within a few minutes to a few hours._

Similarly, if a man says "If Lady Gaga walks in, I would kiss her" and his wife gets angry, the man can say "But honey, I didn't say I _*will*_ kiss her. I said I *would *kiss her, because it's a non-actualized speech act." Of course, that may not be enough to get the husband off the hook, and he might end up sleeping on the couch anyway.


----------



## karlalou

Thanks, SevenDays. What you say just so makes sense to me.


----------



## Tenacious Learner

Thank you for all your replies and interest. It's not that easy, as I can see from all your replies, to give a unique definition about Conditionals.
As SevenDays told me, books simplify things and talk about_ zero, first, second, third, mixed_ _conditionals_. There's nothing wrong with doing that (I have to start somewhere). But I should also understand that the "four conditional types" is really arbitrary and simplistic.

TL


----------



## Thomas Tompion

karlalou said:


> Oh, I've heard that the tenses can be mixed; one in the if-clause, and another in the main clause, but this case can not?


There are habits of tense sequencing which you would be wise to learn, in my view.


----------



## wandle

SevenDays said:


> Of course it's grammatical


I beg to differ. The mere fact that people say it does not make it grammatical (if that were so, nothing people said would ever be ungrammatical: and grammar would cease to exist as a practical guide).


> If they do occur, it will be within a few minutes to a few hours is one of those conditional sentences that neatly fits into one of the IV conditional types  (I don't know which one ...)


As a matter of fact, it is an open future conditional (or first conditional).


> But suppose you don't want to be that certain, that absolute ...? Well, that's what modal verbs do: they attenuate the message.


This is not a complete statement of the case. It is true that people say, for example, 'I would say so', 'I would disagree' etc. in order to tone down the force of what they say.

However, we have to ask how and why the verb 'would' could have that effect. The true analysis in my view is that all such cases are implied conditionals:  'If I were asked (but I have not been), I would say so'; 'If I had to give my opinion (but I don't), I would disagree'. What is more, they are closed (or unreal) conditionals. The effect is to reduce or remove the speaker's responsibility for the view expressed by implying that the situation is not real.

Now in the example in post 18 the 'if' clause is not only an open or real condition, but the writer has emphasised its realness by using the emphatic 'do': he is asking the reader to consider the very case in which the events actually occur. It is then self-contradictory to switch to the unreal scenario implied by using the word 'would'.

As for the Lady Gaga argument, I find that also unconvincing.  It seems to rely, if I may say so, on a quibble, whether it is seen as a matter of language or of behaviour.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Tenacious Learner said:


> But I should also understand that the "four conditional types" is really arbitrary and simplistic.


The point about them is that they are safe.  Understand them and use them properly and you will produce conditional sentences in which the main clause's being met is contingent upon the if-clause's being met.  This is also true of the standard mixed conditional types.

As someone teaching others, TL, you would be wise to get this message over to your students, in my view.


----------



## wandle

This article _How do we overcome the difficulties of teaching conditionals? _cites the eight types of conditionals listed by Hwang, and the 20 listed by Fulcher. Each of those researchers showed that the traditional types 1, 2 and 3 were not even the most frequent in actual use. I venture to repeat my own sixfold classification of basic types, which focuses on the difference between closed and open conditions and also includes the traditional trio:


----------



## Thomas Tompion

SevenDays said:


> _If my wife has a cold, I would catch it_ can simply mean that I'm _resigned _to the fact that I'll end up getting a cold too, or it might mean _intent _on my part, in that I want to catch her cold (so I can take days off work).


It's hard to be sure what people mean when they don't observe grammatical conventions.  Then my guess becomes as good as yours, except that I prefer not to guess.


SevenDays said:


> but linguists will tell you that it's an arbitrary arrangement[...]


I wonder if you mean 'some linguists' here.  You seem to be trying to make it logically disreputable to disagree with you.  Fortunately some linguists know better.


----------



## e2efour

When interpreting conditional sentences, one has to bear in mind that some people don't accept "pseudo-conditional" _if-_clauses (which is a view that can reasonably be held).
Also what may appear to be the "wrong" tense may not be what it seems.

For example, _If it rains tomorrow, I would go to the cinema_ is not a _first conditional_ sentence if we look at the tense (a _first conditional_ would require _I will go to the cinema_).
However, it is a perfectly good sentence if we take the view that _I would go to the cinema_ is a piece of advice (i.e. I suggest that you go to the cinema).

If it is advice, there is no condition in the _if_-clause.

I don't know what the supporters of zero, _first etc. conditionals_ would say, but I suppose it would go into the conventient* "ragbag" of _mixed_ _conditionals_.

I don't think that this analysis applies to _If my wife has a cold, I would catch it._
There may be sentences like this which sound more natural, e.g. _If they win the football game next week, I would be surprised_, which I can imagine myself saying. At any rate, I am not prepared to rule it out.

*convenient


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> I don't know what the supporters of zero, _first etc. conditionals_ would say, but I suppose it would go into the conventient "ragbag" of _mixed_ _conditionals_.


I agree with a lot of the rest of your post, E2, but you should know better, in my view, than try to dismiss mixed conditionals as a ragbag.

There are two standard forms of mixed conditional, the II/III and the III/II.  They are appropriate to different circumstances and are clearly explained here.  The BBC is at pains to get good teachers to explain points of grammar like this.

As for your example -_ if it rains tomorrow, go to the cinema_ - I'm sure you know that the imperative is fully accepted as a possibility in the main clause of a first conditional.  Here's the relevant BBC page.


----------



## e2efour

Thomas Tompion said:


> As for your example -_ if it rains tomorrow, go to the cinema_ - I'm sure you know that the imperative is fully accepted as a possibility in the main clause of a first conditional.  Here's the relevant BBC page.



My example was not about an imperative, it was about a suggestion.


----------



## Vronsky

If we put a kind of gasket between two clauses, it will be sound somehow better and more acceptable to me.

If my wife has a cold, I think I would catch it.​
But maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Loob

wandle said:


> This article _How do we overcome the difficulties of teaching conditionals? _cites the eight types of conditionals listed by Hwang, and the 20 listed by Fulcher.


Interesting article, wandle - thank you.


----------



## siares

What would you call this form, plase, wandle?


Thomas Tompion said:


> _If he caught the earlier train, he will be there now_






Vronsky said:


> In this thread, the three native speakers of English said that it doesn't work





wandle said:


> Make that four.


Do I understand correctly that the speclative tentative would cannot be used for future predictions, only for predictions about the present; as in this post:


Thomas Tompion said:


> _If he came to the meeting last week, he would now know what we are planning_.


?

That thread dealt with
_If she did X in (once) the past, the result (now) would be Y._
rather than
_If she does do X in the present, the result (now or future) would be Y.
_
but I can't see any difference between them as regards the strangeness of 'would'.
_- So is John coming over? Please ask him to get some lemons on the way, I suspect a beginning of a cold.
- Not a good idea for him to come - if you have a cold, he would definitely catch it, you know how prone he is to them! I'll come instead._
Would you insist on 'will' here?

Thank you.


----------



## london calling

wandle said:


> Make that four.


Make that five.


----------



## Vronsky

Thomas Tompion said:


> I don't see anything wrong with something like _If he came to the meeting last week, he would now know what we are planning_.



I understand this sentence as "If he came to the meeting last week, he probably knows what we are planning." (or "... he could know what we are planning")

But I'm not sure if we can use _would _in such a conditional sentence. The question for me is "Can we use _would_ in conditionals type 1 to express degrees of probability?"


----------



## wandle

The BBC page cited by Thomas Tompion in post 32 has this to say about types of conditionals:


> Although there are quite a few different ways of forming conditional sentences there are common patterns known as zero, first, second and third conditionals.


This is the BBC's way of admitting that there are many other types than those four,  while phrasing it in such a way that the learner will gain the impression that the main ones are all being covered.

They do not say that these four are the main ones, or even the most common ones. They are probably aware that other types are more common (see post 29). All they say is that these types are common. Certainly, they all come within the six basic types (A to F) mentioned in post 29 (the zero conditional is one form of the present open conditional, type C).


----------



## wandle

siares said:


> What would you call this form, plase, wandle?


It is a variant of type A (post 29).

'If he caught the earlier train' is a past open condition (there is no suggestion that he did not catch it).

The result clause 'he will be there now' is expressing a present consequence of that condition. It uses the future tense to express it in the form of a prediction (saying what will prove upon investigation to be the case).


----------



## wandle

_If he came to the meeting last week, he would now know what we are planning_.

This ought to be: _If he came to the meeting last week, he *will* now know what we are planning_.

Thus it is another example of the above type of conditional (type A variant), with the future tense again used in a predictive sense (if we ask him, we will find that he knows).


----------



## siares

Thank you very much, wandle.



wandle said:


> This ought to be: _If he came to the meeting last week, he *will* now know what we are planning_.


The form with 'would' in a different sentence has been discussed at great length in the thread If she was standing....when he was struggling....would be where many native speakers found it normal.

I posted the question here because I want to find the difference between the form discussed there (past open conditional), and the one discussed here (present).

Question for other posters, especially Loob and Thomas Tompion who posted in the other thread:
Is 'will' replaceable by 'would' only in case that that 'will' is a form of prediction, rather than a normal future tense?
Because I think any future tense statement is only a prediction..

Why (as I think from examples in this and the other thread)
*If she had a cold last week, he would be sick too now.* is acceptable as a version of
_If she had a cold last week, he will be sick too now_.  (past open)

and
*If she has a cold, he would catch it.* is unacceptable as a version of
_If she has a cold, he will catch it_. (present open)

Is there a difference between the green and the red will?
Or is there another difference at play?

Thank you.


----------



## wandle

siares said:


> The form with 'would' in a different sentence has been discussed at great length in the thread If she was standing....when he was struggling....would be where many native speakers found it normal.


That example is correct, because it is all in a past context. 'Would' is the past tense of 'will'.

To generate a present context, imagine a film producer discussing how to play a scene:

'If she is standing behind him when he is struggling with the assailant, the blood spatter will be ...'


----------



## karlalou

Then how do you say when you have no idea if your wife has a cold or not? 

Don't you use the present tense and say "If my wife has a cold"?


----------



## wandle

Yes. See post 17.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

siares said:


> *If she had a cold last week, he would be sick too now.* is acceptable as a version of
> _If she had a cold last week, he will be sick too now_. (past open)


_If she had a cold last week, he would be sick too now_ is fine as it stands but don't think it's what some people call an open condition - it's saying he isn't sick now, so she cannot have had a cold.


----------



## siares

wandle said:


> That example is correct, because it is all in a past context. 'Would' is the past tense of 'will'.


No, it went like: If she was standing there (in the past), there would be a blood spatter here on the shoulder. (pointing at a shoulder of one of the mannequin). It was a very complicated example for discussion because they were recreating the crime with mannequins at the time of speaking; and they knew there isn't a blood stain, -they just pretented that a possibility of it being there is still open. Like speculative thinking in a more simple example:
*untruth of then-clause is known*


Loob said:


> If it was snowing half an hour ago, my car would be covered. But, as you see, it isn't covered, so it can't have been snowing half an hour ago.


Then there were other examples given, where the *truth value of the then-clause isn't known.*


siares said:


> Hearing shots and screams from unknown place and going to check on one of the (more) neighbours:
> _If he was shot, he will be bleeding - let's get bandages.
> If he was shot, he would be bleeding - let's get bandages._
> a) Do both versions leave the question of whether he was shot equally open?





Thomas Tompion said:


> Yes, they can do.
> The sentences have very similar force, because the first one uses the 'future of probability', which is not a true future tense.


[/QUOTE]



wandle said:


> That example is correct, because it is all in a past context. 'Would' is the past tense of 'will'.


I don't get this..In Loob's sentence above, 'would' is not past tense of 'will'...?


----------



## siares

Thomas Tompion said:


> _If she had a cold last week, he would be sick too now_ is fine as it stands but don't think it's what some people call an open condition -* it's saying he isn't sick now*, so she cannot have had a cold.


Oh... how is it saying that? How do we know? that he is or isn't sick, if we haven't checked?
The sentence seems very similar to the one below in bold, where we do not know whether he is or isn't there.


Thomas Tompion said:


> I think people are more likely to say _If he caught the earlier train, he will be there now_ than _*If he caught the earlier train, he would be there now*, _though a good deal depends on context - are we likely to be able to verify whether or not he is there (if we were going to meet him, we'd use _will_)? If we were miles away and have no means of verification, we'd be more likely to use _would_.
> In either case we'd be very likely to say _should_, to indicate strong probability.



Thank you.


----------



## Vronsky

Thomas Tompion said:


> _If she had a cold last week, he would be sick too now_ is fine as it stands but don't think it's what some people call an open condition - it's saying he isn't sick now, so she cannot have had a cold.


I think the sentence in this meaning would be, "If she had had a cold last week, he would've been sick now."
It means, "he isn't sick now, so she cannot have had a cold"


----------



## karlalou

wandle said:


> Yes. See post 17.


Thanks. I got it. This is about if it fits to any of the samples.
Different from what the real life condition requires us.

Learners of English as our second language have no idea if it's actually in use everywhere unless told so or having taken so much time to research it.

I was trying to interpret what actually the OP's sentence means and was trying to find an application in real life for the OP's sentence in my #5.

Is it that the "I would catch it" sounds too much like the speaker is willing to catch it?
I still have no idea why


> "If my wife has a cold, I would catch it"


is so wrong while the government organization is saying


> "If they *do *occur, it *would *be within a few minutes to a few hours after the vaccination. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)"


and if my interpretation for the OP's sentence, which I've written in my #5, is wrong or not.


----------



## Loob

Well, as regards the "has a cold ... would" example, it does sound a bit strange. But SevenDays is right that this sequence of tenses is entirely possible:
_If your wife gets a cold, you would be well advised to get in large quantities of brandy._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I thought someone tried to explain that the _would_ in  _If they *do *occur, it *would *be within a few minutes to a few hours after the vaccination _is not a conditional but expressing a likelihood.  _It's equivalent to If they *do *occur, it is likely that they do so within a few minutes to a few hours after the vaccination._

So, Karlalou your parallel doesn't stand, in my view.  I can quite see that this is all very puzzling.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob said:


> Well, as regards the "has a cold ... would" example, it does sound a bit strange. But SevenDays is right that this sequence of tenses is entirely possible:
> _If your wife gets a cold, you would be well advised to get in large quantities of brandy._


_You would be well advised_ is a form of gentle imperative, what was called earlier 'a suggestion', so I see this as a variant of the 1st conditional.

It doesn't even sound strange to my ear.

One problem is that we use forms with 'would' so often to project meanings other than the conditional.


----------



## Loob

Thomas Tompion said:


> One problem is that we use forms with 'would' so often to project meanings other than the conditional.


----------



## karlalou

Thomas Tompion said:


> I thought someone tried to explain that the _would_ in _If they *do *occur, it *would *be within a few minutes to a few hours after the vaccination _is not a conditional but expressing a likelihood.


Yes, so does "If my wife has a cold, I would catch it".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

karlalou said:


> Yes, so does "If my wife has a cold, I would catch it".


No, not to my ear.  That was the point of my post.  The parallel you are drawing doesn't work, in my view.


----------



## karlalou

Thomas Tompion said:


> The parallel you are drawing doesn't work, in my view.


I don't understand what you mean by "parallel", please use the different expression other than "parallel".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

karlalou said:


> I don't understand what you mean by "parallel", please use the different expression other than "parallel".


You were saying that the two sentences resembled each other, so what was true of the one was true of the other.

I pointed out important differences between them, trying to show you that what applied to the one did not apply to the other.


----------



## karlalou

Thomas Tompion said:


> One problem is that we use forms with 'would' so often to project meanings other than the conditional.


If I've missed to read somewhere in this thread then I'm sorry, I have to look through this over again, but this is the best explanation I got about this 'would' so far. This is very valid explanation to me.


----------



## SevenDays

Thomas Tompion said:


> There are habits of tense sequencing which you would be wise to learn, in my view.



There's an interesting debate in linguistics: whether or not conditional sentences are _*tensed*_. I'm inclined to believe that they are not (we don't say that "had" in _if I *had* money_ signals "past tense"), which means that talking about _tense sequencing_ can lead us down the wrong path. It might be a technical point, whether conditionals show "tense," but it gets to the core of our discussion.

Would you also say that this conditional sentence is also wrong?
_
If she comes to the meeting, I *would* talk to her_

It is a conditional sentence (my talking to her depends on the condition "if she comes to the meeting" being met), and it follows the same structure of _If my wife has a cold, I would catch it _(if clause, present tense ... result clause, would). And both conditionals are "open" (nothing prevents the condition from being met). If, as has been stated in this thread, the "cold" conditional is wrong, then the "meeting" conditional is also wrong; after all, both sentences violate the sequence of tenses of 1st conditionals.

Conditional sentences are _*semantic*_ beasts, and modal verbs bring their semantic nuances into sentence structure. _If she comes to the meeting, I *will* talk to her_ says one thing (prediction; my "talking to her" is absolutely going to happen); _if she comes to the meeting, I *would* talk to her_ says something else (I'm _open_ to the idea of talking to her). Similarly,_ if my wife has a cold, I *will* catch it_ makes a prediction, whereas _if my wife has a cold, I *would* catch it_ says something else ("my having a cold" expressed as a _possibility, concession, resignation_, etc., depending on context or speaker attitude).

But there are restrictions. If the condition and the result occupy different temporal spheres, the use of "would" is problematic: _If my wife had had a cold, I would catch it _??? Necessarily, the result and the condition must be in the same temporal frame (past "time"):_ If my wife *had had* a cold, I *would have* caught it_. In other words, what happens in the past, stays in the past. (In the "cold" and "meeting" examples, the condition and result share the same temporal perspective.)

Whoever came up with zero conditionals, first conditionals, second conditionals and third conditionals had the good sense of creating a fifth category ("mixed conditionals") for those sentences that don't neatly fit into the first four categories. Linguists (or _some_ linguists, point taken, TT), might well wonder, where did these five categories come from? And if we have 5 conditionals, why can't we have 6 or 60? Be that as it may, I'd put "If she comes, I *would* talk to her," and "If my wife has a cold, I *would *catch her" into the category of "mixed conditionals;" that's what this category is there for, that "ragbag" where all the _inconvenient _conditionals are thrown into. 

Interesting discussion, with various points of view. At the very least, it is thought-provoking (which is never a bad thing).


----------



## wandle

Replying to post 47:


wandle said:


> That example is correct, because it is all in a past context. 'Would' is the past tense of 'will'.





siares said:


> No, it went like: If she was standing there (in the past), there would be a blood spatter here on the shoulder.


I am sorry, I was mistaken in that comment, through excessive haste.

The meaning of the sentence is that the woman was not standing behind the captain. This was pointed out in the earlier thread:


Glasguensis said:


> It's an unreal situation in the past.


Yes. That means the event did not happen. Such conditions are also called closed or remote.

English has only one valid way to express a closed or unrealised condition in the past: that is by using the past perfect tense.
Therefore we can only conclude that the topic sentence of that thread is incorrect. It ought to read:

'If she *had been* standing behind the Captain when he was struggling with the killer, then the blood spatter would be here ...'


----------



## siares

Thank you for the answer, wandle, I appreciate it.


wandle said:


> That means the event did not happen. Such conditions are also called closed or remote.


The same structure was used, though, in other examples given by native speakers when we don't know  whether the event happened or not*, because we have not verified the 'then-clause'.
An example from the thread:


> *If he came to the meeting last week, he would now know what we are planning.*
> That leaves open the question of whether or not he came to the meeting.



If you find the above form acceptable, wandle, can you think of a reason why
*1) If he came to the meeting last week, he would now know what we are planning.* is acceptable to speakers as a version of
_If he came to a meeting last week, he will now know what we are planning_. 

and
*2)If she has a cold, he would catch it.* is unacceptable as a version of
_If she has a cold, he will catch it_. 

for which I am imagining this context:
_- So is John coming over? Please ask him to get some lemons for me on the way, I suspect a beginning of a cold.
- Not a good idea for him to come - if you have a cold, he would definitely catch it, you know how prone he is to them! I'll come instead._

Thank you.

*(in the case of the blood stain it was: pretend we don't know)


----------



## siares

karlalou said:


> Yes, so does "If my wife has a cold, I would catch it".


I think this sentence is not similar to the vaccination sentence.
A similar sentence in my opinion would be:
_If my wife has a cold, it is a severe one._
The 'if' is replaceable by 'whenever'. 'Whenever' should be logically suspect in conditional about future result.

But it would be possible if speaking about her past colds : If (whenever)my wife had a cold, I would always catch it.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

siares said:


> I think this sentence is not similar to the vaccination sentence.
> A similar sentence in my opinion would be:
> _If my wife has a cold, it is a severe one._
> The 'if' is replaceable by 'whenever'. 'Whenever' should be logically suspect in conditional about future result.
> 
> But it would be possible if speaking about her past colds : If (whenever)my wife had a cold, I would always catch it.


Yes, this is fine, my friend Siares; a clear exploration of some of the ways the zero conditional works.


----------



## wandle

> *If he came to the meeting last week, he would now know what we are planning.*
> That leaves open the question of whether or not he came to the meeting.





siares said:


> If you find the above form acceptable, wandle


I have to say that that example is not valid. The 'if' clause can work as an open past conditional (leaving open whether he came to the meeting), but the choice of 'would' in  the result clause is incorrect. It needs to be 'he will now know'.


----------



## siares

Thank you, Thomas Tompion.


wandle said:


> I have to say that that example is not valid.


Thank you, wandle. I think I shouldn't try to use it, then, because even though many native speakers find it valid, those who don't will immediately think I am making a mistake.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

siares said:


> Thank you, wandle. I think I shouldn't try to use it, then, because even though many native speakers find it valid, those who don't will immediately think I am making a mistake.


Which sentence are you talking about now, Siares?  It's unlike you to make a mistake in conditionals.


----------



## Vronsky

wandle said:


> It needs to be 'he will now know'.


Could you please explain what does "he will now know" mean? Because I was taught that _will_ indicates whether the future or willingness.  It cannot be the future because of 'now', so here 'will' means the willingness?


----------



## wandle

Vronsky said:


> Could you please explain what does "he will now know" mean?


Please see post 40 and post 41.


----------



## Cagey

Any questions you have about posts in another thread should be asked in that thread, where people can see the full context. 

This thread is closed for a well-deserved rest. 

Cagey.


----------

