# will/would die



## lingkky

The dog would /will evebtually die if no one send him for treatment.

can both “would” and “will” be accepted ？


----------



## DonnyB

Sorry, no.  You need to say either:

The dog will eventually die if no one sends him for treatment. _(= the dog is very seriously ill)._
or
The dog would eventually die if no one sent him for treatment. _(= the dog is not, at the moment, seriously ill)._


----------



## lingkky

DonnyB said:


> Sorry, no.  You need to say either:
> 
> The dog will eventually die if no one sends him for treatment. _(= the dog is very seriously ill)._
> or
> The dog would eventually die if no one sent him for treatment. _(= the dog is not, at the moment, seriously ill)._



Why we use "sent" in the second sentence instead of "send" ?
The second sentence is a general statement right? It is timeless too.


----------



## DonnyB

lingkky said:


> Why we use "sent" in the second sentence instead of "send" ?
> The second sentence is a general statement right? It is timeless too.


No: as I see it they're both straightforward conditional sentences.

So in the second one, the correct combination of tenses is a simple past 'sent' in the if-clause, and a conditional 'would die' in the main clause.


----------



## Lun-14

lingkky said:


> It is timeless too.



Why do you think it is "timeless", Lingkky?


----------



## lingkky

Lun-14 said:


> Why do you think it is "timeless", Lingkky?


I think that the dog which is/was severely ill would die anytime if no one sent him for treatment.（timeless）

we use past tense ？ 

I am not sure I need to choose is or was in the above sentence.
Please help me.


----------



## Lun-14

Compare:

The dog which is *not* seriously ill now would die anytime if no one sent him for the treatment.
The dog which was seriously ill then would die anytime if no one sent him for the treatment.

Does that help?


----------



## lingkky

Can we use "would die " to construct a sentence about a general fact?
We use past tense in that case?
For example,
"People would die if they didn't have food for seven days."(past tense)

Does it have the same meaning as
"People die if they don't have food for seven days. "?(present tense)

Do they show any difference in meaning?


----------



## DonnyB

lingkky said:


> Can we use "would die " to construct a sentence about a general fact?
> We use past tense in that case?
> For example,
> "People would die if they didn't have food for seven days."(past tense)
> 
> Does it have the same meaning as
> "People die if they don't have food for seven days. "?(present tense)
> 
> Do they show any difference in meaning?


I think you could probably call the version with the present tenses a "general fact":
"People die if they don't have food for seven days".

But if you alter it the tenses to:
"People would die if they didn't have food for seven days", it becomes_ an unreal or closed condition_, because it denotes that people _are_ _not at the moment_ actually dying through not eating food for seven days: it's a hypothetical scenario.


----------



## lingkky

DonnyB said:


> I think you could probably call the version with the present tenses a "general fact":
> "People die if they don't have food for seven days".
> 
> But if you alter it the tenses to:
> "People would die if they didn't have food for seven days", it becomes_ an unreal or closed condition_, because it denotes that people _are_ _not at the moment_ actually dying through not eating food for seven days: it's a hypothetical scenario.



I wonder can the word “would” be ignored when making a hypothesis.

for example,
“The dog died if there was no water.”
is it correct when “would” is not added and what is the difference？


----------



## DonnyB

lingkky said:


> I wonder can the word “would” be ignored when making a hypothesis.
> 
> for example,
> “The dog died if there was no water.”
> is it correct when “would” is not added and what is the difference？


It completely alters the meaning of the sentence.

“The dog died if there was no water.” is an open past conditional stating that whenever there was no water, the dog always died as a result.

It's a bit odd logically as it stands, because it could be taken to imply that the same dog kept dying repeatedly through lack of water.


----------



## lingkky

DonnyB said:


> It completely alters the meaning of the sentence.
> 
> “The dog died if there was no water.” is an open past conditional stating that whenever there was no water, the dog always died as a result.
> 
> It's a bit odd logically as it stands, because it could be taken to imply that the same dog kept dying repeatedly through lack of water.


I want to mention the same dog in the hypothesis.The dog has water at the moment.

What is the difference between both sentences if the dog is always the same

"The dog would die if there was no water."
"The dog died if there was no water."

what is the difference betwren them？
Note that the dog is always the same


----------



## boozer

DonnyB said:


> It's a bit odd logically as it stands, because it could be taken to imply that the same dog kept dying repeatedly through lack of water.


 Is there any other way in which it could be understood? 
Reminds me of:
A. A man is run over in New York every 5 minutes. (statistics)
B. Poor man.


----------



## DonnyB

lingkky said:


> I want to mention the same dog in the hypothesis.The dog has water at the moment.
> 
> What is the difference between both sentences if the dog is always the same
> 
> "The dog would die if there was no water."
> "The dog died if there was no water."
> 
> what is the difference betwren them？
> Note that the dog is always the same


In that scenario, the second sentence is incorrect.  It only works if the dog did *not* have any water.


----------



## lingkky

DonnyB said:


> In that scenario, the second sentence is incorrect.  It only works if the dog did *not* have any water.



I cannot understand how to apply the second sentence.Can you explain it in more details?
Is it a general statement or it only refers to the past?


----------



## DonnyB

lingkky said:


> I cannot understand how to apply the second sentence.Can you explain it in more details?
> Is it a general statement or it only refers to the past?


It only refers to the _past_.

See the explanation I gave you in post #11.


----------



## lingkky

Ho


DonnyB said:


> It only refers to the _past_.
> 
> See the explanation I gave you in post #11.




 Can I use that sentence for an unreal event that does not exists in the past?


For example,
Fortunately,* there was water a few days before *because of raining.The dog was very lucky and escaped from the death.  "The dog died if there was no water. "

Is it correct ?


----------



## wandle

lingkky said:


> "The dog died if there was no water. "
> Is it correct ?


No. For that example, you have to say: 'The dog would have died if there had been no water'.


----------



## lingkky

Lun-14 said:


> Compare:
> 
> The dog which is *not* seriously ill now would die anytime if no one sent him for the treatment.
> The dog which was seriously ill then would die anytime if no one sent him for the treatment.
> 
> Does that help?



can the pesent tense “send” used to replace “sent” in the second sentence？
The dog which was seriously ill then would die anytime if no one “send” him for the treatment.
is it correct when sent is replaced with send？


----------



## Lun-14

lingkky said:


> can the pesent tense “send” used to replace “sent” in the second sentence？
> The dog which was seriously ill then would die anytime if no one “send” him for the treatment.
> is it correct when sent is replaced with send？



No, that would be incorrect.

*First conditional:*
If + simple present tense ---->  simple future tense

*Second conditional:*
If + simple past tense ---->  would

[Conditionals | EnglishClub]

You can't mix them up:

If + simple present tense ---->  would 

If + simple past tense ---->  simple future tense


----------



## wandle

Lun-14 said:


> You can't mix them up:


That is partly true.


Lun-14 said:


> If + simple present tense ----> would


Correct. That combination is not valid.


Lun-14 said:


> If + simple past tense ----> simple future tense


However, this combination is valid.
For example, suppose a salesman is authorised to give a 10% discount, but actually gives the customer 15%. When they hear this in the office, someone might say, 'If Jones gave 15%, the boss will be furious'.


----------



## irinet

wandle said:


> 'If Jones gave 15%, the boss will be furious'.



Hi,

I'd like to see if I've understood correctly...
It's mixed conditional, and it points that while the discount of 15% is doubted, the boss' anger is not.

Thanks,


----------



## Lun-14

Thanks for correcting me, wandle.



wandle said:


> If Jones gave 15%, the boss will be furious'.



I have a little trouble understanding the true concept of this mixed conditional sentence. Could you please rephrase it in a simpler way by comparing it with the first conditional (_If Jones *gives* 15%, the boss will be furious_)?

Thanks.


----------



## boozer

I agree with Wandle. 
The example is a conditional sentence that contains an open past condition, i.e. the speaker has no idea whether Jones really did or did not give 15%. In the speaker's mind the condition remains open even though the action now belongs to the past.
For me this is a variety of the normal 1st conditional.
The same could be expressed with present perfect:
If Jones has given 15%, the boss will be furious.


----------



## wandle

Lun-14 said:


> Could you please rephrase it in a simpler way by comparing it with the first conditional (_If Jones *gives* 15%, the boss will be furious_)?


The sentence 'If Jones gives 15%, the boss will be furious' refers wholly to the future. The 'if' clause and result clause both refer to the future. In this example, no deal has yet been done.

The sentence 'If Jones gave 15%, the boss will be furious' refers to the future result of a past condition. At the time of speaking, the deal has already been done, but the boss has not yet been told. 

The speaker does not know what discount has actually been given, but does know that if it was 15%, then the boss will be very angry when he hears about it.


----------



## irinet

It's too complex. So you (English) mix real facts (= the deal, the boss reaction) with future and unknown yet, but predictable actions (the discount given; the boss has not heard of the deal but he will).

I think that the Conditional with Present Perfect + will is much clearer than this with Past Tense + will.


----------



## wandle

We have just had a general election in the UK. The voting closed at 10 pm last night. The exit poll (a survey of voters after they had voted, published at 10 pm, before the real results came in) predicted 314 seats for the Tories. 

The commentators on TV immediately started saying things like: 'If the Tories have only won 314 seats, the government will be in difficulties'.


----------



## irinet

Well, in Politics, I suppose the mixed Conditionals are the excellent choice to start a debate.
Is it with 314 seats more above the 103 seats they already won since the Victorian period?


----------



## wandle

irinet said:


> I think that the Conditional with Present Perfect + will is much clearer than this with Past Tense + will.


Both of these are valid. Present perfect in 'if' clause with future in result clause is the more frequent of the two.


----------



## Lun-14

wandle said:


> The sentence 'If Jones gives 15%, the boss will be furious' refers wholly to the future. The 'if' clause and result clause both refer to the future. In this example, no deal has yet been done.
> 
> The sentence 'If Jones gave 15%, the boss will be furious' refers to the future result of a past condition. At the time of speaking, the deal has already been done, but the boss has not yet been told.
> 
> The speaker does not know what discount has actually been given, but does know that if it was 15%, then the boss will be very angry when he hears about it.


 Thanks a lot, wandle. 

If you worked hard [in the past] and I don't know whether you _really_ did, you will pass the competitive exam.

If you work hard [in the future] and I don't know whether you _really_ will, you will pass the competitive exam.

Have I understood correctly?


----------



## wandle

Lun-14 said:


> Have I understood correctly?


Yes, but:


Lun-14 said:


> If you worked hard [in the past] and I don't know whether you _really_ did, you will pass the competitive exam.


for this example, the natural tense in the 'if' clause is the present perfect.


----------



## Lun-14

wandle said:


> Yes



Thanks.



> If you work hard [in the future] and I don't know whether you _really_ will, you will pass the competitive exam.



I have a slight doubt over this read part: In the first conditional, does the speaker have any idea from any present conditions that the the person (who's being addressed) will _really_
work hard or does the speaker have not any idea/clue about whether that person will really perform the action of working hard?


----------



## wandle

Lun-14 said:


> If you work hard [in the future]


This is called an open condition, which means the speaker treats it as a completely open question: it may come true, or it may not: both are seen as equally possible.


----------



## Lun-14

wandle said:


> This is called an open condition, which means the speaker treats it as a completely open question: it may come true, or it may not: both are seen as equally possible.



Thanks again, wandle. Are you a grammarian?


----------



## wandle

No, that is, not an academic specialist in that field, but I used to teach languages and have always been interested in grammar.


----------



## lingkky

A dog has* water at the moment*.I want to make a hyothesis what would happen to the dog if there was no water.

1.The dog *would die* if there was no water.
2.The dog *will* *die* if there is no water.

I am sure that the first sentence is correct.Can the second sentence be used in the context when making the hypothesis when the dog has water at the moment？


----------



## boozer

No, it does not make much sense to say what will happen if there is no water when you see that there is - being a stative verb, 'is' includes the present.
_The dog will die if the well runs dry_. - this one is fine because it is about the future, open conditional, type 1.


----------



## lingkky

boozer said:


> No, it does not make much sense to say what will happen if there is no water when you see that there is - being a stative verb, 'is' includes the present.
> _The dog will die if the well runs dry_. - this one is fine because it is about the future, open conditional, type 1.



“Will” has two meanings.It can be used to emphasis a fact besides referring to the future. I was not trying to use“will” as a future tense here.I tried to emphasis the real fact using the word “will”
I wonder if it can work in the context.


----------



## boozer

It is not about 'will'. It is about the verb 'to be' - it refers to the present. You say you know that there is water. It does not make much sense to say that there isn't then.


----------



## wandle

lingkky said:


> 1.The dog *would die* if there was no water.
> 2.The dog *will* *die* if there is no water.


I recommend 'were' instead of 'was' in sentence (1), but that apart that there is nothing with either sentence. Both are equally valid. 

Sentence (1) is a closed future conditional; (2) is an open future conditional. The only difference between the two is that in (1) the speaker thinks it unlikely that the dog will have no water, while (2) leaves that question completely open.

The presence or absence of water at the time of speaking makes no difference, because both sentences are about the future and we can imagine the future as different from the present.


----------



## lingkky

boozer said:


> It is not about 'will'. It is about the verb 'to be' - it refers to the present. You say you know that there is water. It does not make much sense to say that there isn't then.


Ok. I got it. Thanks. 

"The baby will cry if *it is* noisy. "
Does the sentence works if it is quiet now?


----------



## wandle

boozer said:


> . It is about the verb 'to be' - it refers to the present.


In sentence (2), the clause 'if there is no water' can only refer to the future. We know that because the main verb is 'will die' and that places the whole sentence in the future.


----------



## lingkky

boozer said:


> It is not about 'will'. It is about the verb 'to be' - it refers to the present. You say you know that there is water. It does not make much sense to say that there isn't then.


As Wandle said, you are wrong.


----------



## lingkky

wandle said:


> In sentence (2), the clause 'if there is no water' can only refer to the future. We know that because the main verb is 'will die' and that places the whole sentence in the future.


Does "Unlikely" mean uncertain?
Is "will" or "would"  more common to be said in the context?
Which one is preffered? 
Are they interchangable?


----------



## wandle

lingkky said:


> Does "Unlikely" mean uncertain?


No. It means the speaker believes it is not likely (not probable) that the dog will have no water. The speaker believes the dog probably will have water.


lingkky said:


> "will" or "would" is more common to be said in the context?


'Will' and 'would' belong to two different contexts. 
'Would' is correct in (1), but wrong in (2).  'Will' is correct in (2), but wrong in (1).


----------



## boozer

lingkky said:


> As Wandle said, you are wrong.



I am glad you believe that.
Next time you see a bucket of water next to the kennel, you can use the first conditional and hope your present-tense 'there isn't' (stative verb) will be taken to refer exclusively to the future.


----------



## lingkky

wandle said:


> No. It means the speaker believes it is not likely (not probable) that the dog will have no water. The speaker believes the dog probably will have water.
> 'Will' and 'would' belong to two different contexts.
> 'Would' is correct in (1), but wrong in (2).  'Will' is correct in (2), but wrong in (1).


I found that an educational book prefers to use the word "would" when making a hypothesis about a fact that always happen or it is likely to happen.
For example, "Inflation would happened if the govermentment printed too much  money".
The event is likely to happen.It always happens in the countries around the world.
May I know why?
Why does not it choose "will"?


----------



## wandle

boozer said:


> present-tense 'there isn't'


The standard construction for an open future conditional is: future tense in the main clause, present tense in the 'if' clause.

It works in the same way as a sentence with 'when': 'When I see her, I will tell her'.

In both cases, there is the option to use future tense in the subordinate clause but, except in contexts such as legal and official language, this is now generally regarded as out of date.


----------



## boozer

I know that, but the future meaning is not easily inferred or expressed without context or without words that lead us there, e.g. tomorrow, next year, etc.

The fact that we are dealing with a stative verb is another complication. Seeing someone vomit at the sight of pudding, it would be nonsense to say 'If she likes pudding, she will eat it'. That is the kind of situation we have in the context of post 36.


----------



## wandle

lingkky said:


> "Inflation would happen if the government printed too much money".


Here again you have the same two options, both referring to the future.

Either (3): 'Inflation will happen if the government prints too much money' (open future conditional);
or (4): 'Inflation would happen if the government printed too much money' (closed future conditional).

Both these sentences mean and clearly state that inflation is the undoubted consequence of printing too much money.

The only difference between the two is that in (4) the speaker believes the government is not likely to print too much money (the speaker believes the government will probably keep the money supply under control), whereas in (3) the speaker leaves that question completely open.

Compare other examples in this post in another thread.


----------



## wandle

boozer said:


> the future meaning is not easily inferred or expressed without context


The context of the 'if' clause is the main clause and that is future.


----------



## boozer

wandle said:


> The context of the 'if' clause is the main clause and that is future.


No, it is not necessarily about the future. Far from it.
_If there is water in the pipe, it will freeze when the temperature goes down and the pipe will burst_.
We are clearly talking about water now and future results of its presence now. Because the verb is stative, it is inferred that the water will stay, not that new water will get into the pipe.


----------



## wandle

boozer said:


> _If there is water in the pipe, it will freeze when the temperature goes down and the pipe will burst_.


That is a future conditional and the context is necessarily future. That is a matter of grammar.
That sentence is depicting a future situation, not a present one. The sentence is equally valid whether there is water in the pipe now or not.


----------



## boozer

I think you are confusing protasis and apodosis. Type 1 conditionals are more accurately described as non-past open conditionals exactly because the time reference can be present or future.
"In type 1 conditional sentences, the time is the *present or future* and the situation is *real*."
Type 1 Conditional | English Grammar Guide | EF

This is particularly true of the if-clause or the protasis. When we have stative verbs, we are stuck firmly in the present - as in the example given by me and as in the context given in post 36 - unless context clearly sends us in the future.  In the context provided by Lingky we are still in the present with the present forms of to be - are/is/am - there is or there isn't water now. I think it is pointless to further discuss the obvious.


----------



## wandle

boozer said:


> I think you are confusing protasis and apodosis.


Certainly not. 'Protasis' is the traditional Greek-derived term for the 'if' clause and 'apodosis' for the result clause.
The result clause is the main clause and that sets the time context in this case.


boozer said:


> "In type 1 conditional sentences, the time is the *present or future* and the situation is *real*."


All that means is that the so-called 'type 1 conditional' actually includes two distinct conditional types: the present open conditional and the future open conditional.
The present open conditional takes present tense in both clauses. The future open takes present in the 'if' clause and future in the result clause (subject to exception mentioned in post 48). Compare the six basic types in this table, which shows the difference.

Grammatically speaking, the only thing that distinguishes the two types is the tense of the main clause. That is determinative.

The EF website quoted is reliable in its own terms, but it is by no means comprehensive. It does not distinguish all conditional types. The fact is that many combinations of different times are possible, particularly in open conditions. For example, a present open condition ('if' clause) may have a consequence (result clause) which is past, present or future.

An example of a present open condition with a future consequence could be: 'If that plant is on the banned list, you will not be allowed to take it through customs'.

However, the sentence 'If there is water in the pipe, it will freeze when the temperature goes down and the pipe will burst' cannot properly be seen as a present condition with a future consequence, because that would make it illogical. It does not follow that if there is water there now, it will freeze in the future, because we do not know whether the water will be there in the future.


----------



## boozer

wandle said:


> The present open conditional takes present tense in both clauses. .


No, that would be type zero conditional, which is not being discussed there. Nor are we discussing it.

And I completely disagree with your last paragraph, sorry to say.

All I can say is that you are encouraging people to say "if there isn't water" in a situation where they clearly see that there is water. Or you see a black person and you say "if he is white" and mean to refer to the future...


----------



## wandle

boozer said:


> All I can say is that you are encouraging people to say "if there isn't water" in a situation where they clearly see that there is water. Or you see a black person and you say "if he is white" and mean to refer to the future...


Excuse me, I have obviously said nothing of the sort.


----------



## boozer

Well, the context in post 36 says that there is water. That is a fact.
And then he proposes a sentence like
'If' there isn't water...'
And you say the sentence is fine in that situation. I say it is not logical.

In that situation it would be perfectly normal to use the hypothetical type 2 conditional
'If there wasn't water...'


----------



## wandle

boozer said:


> No, that would be the type zero conditional, which is not being discussed there. Nor are we discussing it.


There we have unfortunately another misconception due to the inadequacy of the 0,1,2,3 classification.
The so-called 'zero conditional' (with present tense in both clauses) is said to consist of general truths or scientific propositions: that is, statements of a universal character.

If that criterion is accepted, it excludes a normal present open conditional such as: 'If he is the man in the picture, he is wanted by the police'. 
What type does that belong to in the 0,1,2,3 system?

If we apply the criterion quoted from EF for the 'type 1' conditional ("In type 1 conditional sentences, the time is the *present or future* and the situation is *real*"), then this police example belongs in that category.

But what this really shows is that the 0,1,2,3 classification is unsatisfactory and does not give either a full or a logical picture of English conditionals.


boozer said:


> Well, the context in post 36 says that there is water. That is a fact.


This is what post 36 says:


lingkky said:


> A dog has* water at the moment*. I want to make a hyothesis what would happen to the dog if there was no water.


That is looking for a sentence dealing with a future situation where there is no water.


----------



## boozer

The 0,1,2,3 conditional system is perfectly adequate and recommended by the British Council. It may have inadequacies in far more complicated situations, not the one being discussed here.
Conditionals 1

Your example (man wanted by the police) represents a specific case in which 'if' can be taken to mean 'provided that'. Some people do not see such examples as conditionals at all. I do and for me this is still a valid sub-variety of the 1st conditional, just as valid as, say, _If he killed the sheriff, he will surely kill you, too_. Those are the small inadequacies of the 0,1,2,3 conditional system - it does not handle properly cases like this one, i.e. far more complicated cases.

But we are dealing with a fairly simple and straightforward one.



wandle said:


> That is looking for a sentence dealing with a future situation where there is no water.


In other words, a situation contrary to fact (as assumed in post 36- there *is* water), which requires a different type of conditional. A future situation will only be inferred in a different context in which we are not assuming that there _is _water.


----------



## wandle

boozer said:


> The 0,1,2,3 conditional system is perfectly adequate and recommended by the British Council.


The British Council is a public body which presumably finds it convenient to follow the practice of many language schools which use that classification. It is not primarily an academic but a pragmatic organisation and cannot be expected to engage in detailed analysis or to contemplate changing customary practice. It is a pity that the 0,1,2,3 classification has become accepted to that degree, but that acceptance does not make it logical or adequate.


lingkky said:


> A dog has* water at the moment*.I want to make a hyothesis what would happen to the dog if there was no water.
> 
> 1.The dog *would die* if there was no water.
> 2.The dog *will* *die* if there is no water.
> 
> I am sure that the first sentence is correct. Can the second sentence be used in the context when making the hypothesis when the dog has water at the moment？


*lingkky's* question is whether the sentence 'The dog *will die* if there is no water' can be used if the dog has water at the time of speaking.

The answer to that question is certainly 'Yes'. It could be a warning by the owner when leaving the dog in someone else's care. In exactly the same way, we can say, 'The ice will melt if the temperature rises above zero', when the temperature at the time of speaking is below zero. In fact, the sentence is only appropriate to a time when the temperature is below zero.
'
As stated in a previous post, both sentences (1) and (2) are valid future conditionals. There is no difference between them except that in sentence (1) the speaker thinks it is unlikely that the dog will have no water, while sentence (2) leaves that question entirely open.


boozer said:


> a situation contrary to fact


I am afraid this is not really the true way to distinguish an open (real, factual) conditional from a closed (unreal, hypothetical) conditional.
To quote the Oxford English Grammar once again:


> Direct conditions may be* open (or real) *or* hypothetical (or closed or unreal)*.
> Open conditions leave completely open whether the condition will be fulfilled.
> Hypothetical conditions on the other hand express the speaker's belief that the condition has not been fulfilled (for past conditions), is not fulfilled (for present conditions) or is unlikely to be fulfilled (for future conditions).


----------



## boozer

lingkky said:


> Can the second sentence be used in the context when making the hypothesis when the dog has water at the moment？


He is asking about a hypothesis.
When there is water at the moment - there is no hypothesis here. There is water. At the moment
_The dog *will* *die* if there is no water_ - no hypothesis here either. Absolute certainty.


----------



## wandle

boozer said:


> _The dog *will* *die* if there is no water_ - no hypothesis here either. Absolute certainty.


There is an hypothesis here, namely the possible future condition 'if there is no water'.
As for 'absolute certainty': this is an open condition which leaves the question entirely open. To quote the Oxford English Grammar again:


> Open conditions leave completely open whether the condition will be fulfilled.


----------



## boozer

This is really the last thing I will say.
All of this is true, what you say. I agree that it is possible and I never said it wasn't. But it makes the context completely irrelevant. Whether there is or there is not water now, we can say 'The dog will die if there is no water'.
So why is the finger pointing at a bucket full of water? Now?!? All this is irrelevant and remains irrelevant if we are talking about the future.
Never mind...


----------



## wandle

boozer said:


> Whether there is or there is not water now, we can say 'The dog will die if there is no water'.
> So why is the finger pointing at a bucket full of water? Now?!?


We can imagine the owner leaving the dog for someone else to look after. Before leaving, the owner makes sure there is water there to start with and then asks the other person to keep the bowl filled, adding as a warning, 'The dog will die if there is no water'. 'If there is no water' is equivalent to 'unless you keep the bowl filled'.


----------



## boozer

Yes, that can be imagined. 
The OP, however, left me with the unmistakable impression that he needed type 2 conditional to reflect a counterfactual condition - the finger points at some water. 


lingkky said:


> I want to make a hyothesis what would happen to the dog if there was no water.


As long as no one is led to believe the two mean the same, it is fine.


----------



## wandle

boozer said:


> As long as no one is led to believe the two mean the same, it is fine.


What two?


boozer said:


> type 2 conditional to reflect a counterfactual condition


We are not dealing with a counterfactual condition here, because it is future.


> 1.The dog *would die* if there was no water.


This sentence is a closed (unreal, hypothetical) *future* condition. In the words of the Oxford English Grammar:


> Hypothetical conditions ... express the speaker's belief that the condition has not been fulfilled (for past conditions), is not fulfilled (for present conditions) or is *unlikely to be fulfilled (for future conditions)*.


It is only present or past hypothetical conditions which express the speaker's belief that the condition is not or was not fulfilled in fact.
Closed (or hypothetical) future conditions are ones which the speaker regards as contrary to expectation, not contrary to fact.


> 1.The dog *would die* if there was no water.
> 2.The dog *will* *die* if there is no water.


The difference (and it is the only difference) between these two sentences is that in sentence (1) the speaker believes it is unlikely that there will be no water, whereas in sentence (2) the speaker leaves that question entirely open: it may be that there will be no water, or it may not: both alternatives are seen as equally likely.

Both sentences (1) and (2) are equally valid options for the situation proposed by *lingkky* in post 36. Both sentences equally see the dog's death as the predictable consequence of water deprivation.


----------

