# tense in an "if" clause



## sungstar

According to the grammar rule, the present tense is used instead of the future thense in "if" clauses like " If he calls me, I'll ask."
How about in this sentence?

-If you don't take it, others will.

Can I say "If you will not take it, others will." If so, why does it not follow the "if" clause rule?


----------



## Diablo919

"If you will not take it" doesn't sound natural. I'm not sure if it is correct -- It would be much better to use "If you don't take it,"


----------



## SwissPete

If you don't (now, present) take it, others will (future).


----------



## gaer

Diablo919 said:


> "If you will not take it" doesn't sounds unnatural. I'm not sure if it is correct -- It would be much better to use "If you don't take it,"


I disagree. You are judging the sentence as stiffer because there is no contraction:

A: I won't take it.
B: Well, if you won't (will not) take it, I will.


----------



## Toadie

To be honest, it sounds perfectly fine to me.


----------



## icecreamsoldier

There is a difference in meaning between the two, but both are correct.

"If you will not(won't) take it" = _if you have no intention of taking it _(now or in the future)
"If you don't take it" = _take it or leave it _(_make a decision _now)


----------



## Loob

Yes, in "if you will not/won't take it", "will" does not express the future: it means "be willing to".


----------



## aridra

Another construct, with a slightly different connotation :

'If you were not to take it..... '


----------



## gaer

icecreamsoldier said:


> There is a difference in meaning between the two, but both are correct.
> 
> "If you will not(won't) take it" = _if you have no intention of taking it _(now or in the future)
> "If you don't take it" = _take it or leave it _(_make a decision _now)


I thought about this last night after posting.

Technically, there is certainly a difference. Here is an example, although it uses a different verb:

A: Did you tell her that her husband is cheating?
B: No. I _*didn't*_.
_*A: Well, if you don't, I will. She has a right to know.*_

OR

A: Did you tell her that her husband is cheating?
B: No, and _*I won't*_.
_*A: Well, if you won't, I will (shall). She has a right to know.*_


----------



## sungstar

What if the sentence involves no intention like
"If a rash appears on you, they will try other treatments" 
In this case I can't say "If a rash will appear on you...", can I?


----------



## Blootix

sungstar said:


> What if the sentence involves no intention like
> "If a rash appears on you, they will try other treatments"
> In this case I can't say "If a rash will appear on you...", can I?


No, you cannot use "will" if there is no intention.


----------



## angelofmusic101

sungstar said:


> According to the grammar rule, the present tense is used instead of the future thense in "if" clauses like " If he calls me, I'll ask."
> How about in this sentence?
> 
> -If you don't take it, others will.
> 
> Can I say "If you will not take it, others will." If so, why does it not follow the "if" clause rule?


 
We were studying "if" clauses in French the other day and discussing how we use it in English. If the "if" clause takes the present tense, it can then follow with either the present, future or imperative. The example we looked at was:

If it rains, (tomorrow) (present) I'll/I will take my umbrella (future)
If it rains, (present) (meaning "whenever it rains") I take my umbrella (present)
If it rains, (present) take your umbrella!

In this example; "if you do not take it", although its gives the impression of being a future tense, it is in fact a version of the present tense (eg, you can say I take, I am taking, I do take (though this one is less common and more formal!)) and therefore, this sentence does follow the grammatical rule  

As others have already mentioned, "will" gives the conotation of "having will or more naturally "wanting" to take it.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

aridra said:


> Another construct, with a slightly different connotation :
> 
> 'If you were not to take it..... '


I must say I think most people in BE reserve this for counter-factual or impossible conditions - like 'if I were you' - and, as there's nothing_ prima facie_ impossible about taking an umbrella, we'd be highly unlikely to use it in this case.


----------



## Yo Iuh

gaer said:


> A: I won't take it.
> B: Well, if you won't (will not) take it, I will.


Hi 

B is not correct, even though it is acceptable. The present tense should be used to make a reference to a future point in this context.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Yo Iuh said:


> Hi
> 
> B is not correct, even though it is acceptable. The present tense should be used to make a reference to a future point in this context.


 
Hello Yo Iuh,

Two points:

1.  It's hard to say something isn't correct when it's very generally used.  I got over 2 million Google hits for 'if you won't'.

2.  It has been argued (by Loob) that 'if you won't' means 'if you will not' (if you are not willing to), which is a present tense, and so it doesn't break the rule you are referring to.

I feel you need to face up to these two issues before making up your mind about this.  You may have done so, of course, but your post doesn't hint at the answers you came to.


----------



## Yo Iuh

Sorry Thomas if I did sound a bit harsh.

1. I don't think that the correctness of a given form is related to its use, not matter how generally it is used. The 2 million G hits make it acceptable though, as I stated in my previous post.

2. It is an interesting argument. However, one should use "if you are not willing to" and not "if you won't" or "if you will not". Once again, it's acceptable, and widely used, but it's not correct.

My English isn't as good as my Japanese, German or French, three languages I teach. I guess that puts me in a reliable position to know the difference between "correct" (in its strictest sense) and "acceptable." Of course, I may be wrong, and the English language may have some idiosyncrasies I am not yet aware of (and you'll notice I ask dumb questions in this forum). But given its roots, French and German should be reliable points of comparison.


----------



## Loob

Yo Iuh said:


> 2. It is an interesting argument. However, one should use "if you are not willing to" and not "if you won't" or "if you will not". Once again, it's acceptable, and widely used, but it's not correct.


 
It's absolutely correct, Yo Iuh.  "Will" has several uses, only one of which is to form a "future tense".



> But given its roots, French and German should be reliable points of comparison.


 
German "wollen" *is* quite a good point of comparison


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Yo Iuh said:


> My English isn't as good as my Japanese, German or French, three languages I teach. I guess that puts me in a reliable position to know the difference between "correct" (in its strictest sense) and "acceptable."


I'm probably a bit dumb, but I couldn't see the logic here, Yo Iuh. If you don't think your English is that good, how does that put you in a 'reliable position' to distinguish the correct from the acceptable in the language? My French is not as good as one or two of the other languages I speak, but I don't feel that gives me any special insights into the language, and I defer, probably too timidly at times, to native speakers.


----------



## ofriendragon

> There is a difference in meaning between the two, but both are correct.


What about this question?  Are A and B correct?
If you ____ the doctor's advice, you will become well again soon.
A. listen to
B. will listen
C. are going to take 
D. receive

Thanks in advance.


----------



## audiolaik

ofriendragon said:


> What about this question?  Are A and B correct?
> If you ____ the doctor's advice, you will become well again soon.
> A. listen to
> B. will listen
> C. are going to take
> D. receive
> 
> Thanks in advance.



I would say that both A and B are correct, yet most students at low levels would mark A only.


----------



## Loob

Funnily enough, I'm not quite sure I agree, audio. Sorry for being so perverse. I think that B will only work if you add the word "only" or "just" after "will", making it a hope on the part of the speaker.

I'm having great difficulty working out the logic of my position, though. Here's my best attempt for the moment...

I think I see four circumstances in which "will" _(= be willing_) would be used in an 'if' clause.

(1) In a negative condition: _if you won't listen to the doctor, you won't get better. _
This is equivalent to: _if you refuse to listen to the doctor, you won't get better. _

_(2)_ In an affirmative condition where the action is habitual_: if you will go to work wearing jeans, it's not surprising you keep getting fired._
_(NB the spoken emphasis is on 'will'.)_
_Equivalent to: if you insist on going to work wearing jeans, it's not surprising you keep getting fired. _

_(3)_ In an affirmative condition which is part of an offer:_ if you will step this way, I will show you to your room._
_(spoken emphasis on 'step', not 'will'.)_
_Equivalent to: Please step this way, and I will show you to your room._

_(4)_ In an affirmative condition which represents a hope:_ if you will *only[just]* listen to the doctor's advice, you'll get well again soon._
_(spoken emphasis on 'only' or 'just'.)_
_Equivalent to: I really hope you will listen to the doctor's advice, and if you do, you'll get well again soon._

I feel unusually tentative about this! __


_Edit: darn it, I've actually thought of a fifth. But that's rather a different case, so I'll leave things the way they are and come back to that one later!_


----------



## angelofmusic101

I completely agree with you Loob! I tried to reply to this thread earlier but gave up because I couldn't work out why I thought that-therefore was unable to make no compelling argument..thank you for your imput in that respect


----------



## gaer

Yo Iuh said:


> Sorry Thomas if I did sound a bit harsh.
> 
> 1. I don't think that the correctness of a given form is related to its use, not matter how generally it is used. The 2 million G hits make it acceptable though, as I stated in my previous post.


Google hits show frequency of usage and may be horribly misleading:


> Results 1 - 10 of about 171,000 for "for my wife and I".
> Results 1 - 10 of about 49,100 for "for my wife and me".


(Note to all: this is NOT about prepositions and pronouns. It is simply an example of how Google reflects common usage that would any cause a student to receive a poor grade on an English test.)

The points is that Google is a tool, and we have to be very careful how we use it.


> 2. It is an interesting argument. However, one should use "if you are not willing to" and not "if you won't" or "if you will not". Once again, it's acceptable, and widely used, but it's not correct.


Your definition of what is "correct" is extremely narrow. You seem to be assuming that spoken English and written English should always be the same, and that both should be judged by the same standards.


> My English isn't as good as my Japanese, German or French, three languages I teach. I guess that puts me in a reliable position to know the difference between "correct" (in its strictest sense) and "acceptable."


If anything, it would seem to me that being weaker in English than the other three languages you teach would make you a less reliable source of what is "correct" in English, even in its strictest sense.


> Of course, I may be wrong, and the English language may have some idiosyncrasies I am not yet aware of (and you'll notice I ask dumb questions in this forum). But given its roots, French and German should be reliable points of comparison.


I would think that the complexity of "wollen", in German, would give you more insight into the complexity of "shall/will" in English, which is not only complicated in a general sense but also in regard to AE vs. BE usage.

Gaer


----------



## Loob

angelofmusic101 said:


> I completely agree with you Loob! I tried to reply to this thread earlier but gave up because I couldn't work out why I thought that-therefore was unable to make no compelling argument..thank you for your imput in that respect


Thank you for your support, angel

Knowing audio, he will come back with an extremely clever question which will make us both think again!


----------



## gaer

Loob said:


> (1) In a negative condition: _if you won't listen to the doctor, you won't get better. _
> This is equivalent to: _if you refuse to listen to the doctor, you won't get better._


This is such a common and natural construction, I don't see how anyone could object to it, at least in spoken English.


> _(2)_ In an affirmative condition where the action is habitual_: if you will go to work wearing jeans, it's not surprising you keep getting fired._
> _(NB the spoken emphasis is on 'will'.)_
> _Equivalent to: if you insist on going to work wearing jeans, it's not surprising you keep getting fired. _


I believe this is much less natural sounding in AE than in BE. I would say "insist on", but I would not consider it the least bit strange in dialogue, just a bit more regional.


> _(3)_ In an affirmative condition which is part of an offer:_ if you will step this way, I will show you to your room._
> _(spoken emphasis on 'step', not 'will'.)_
> _Equivalent to: Please step this way, and I will show you to your room._


That seems totally natural to me. 


> _(4)_ In an affirmative condition which represents a hope:_ if you will *only[just]* listen to the doctor's advice, you'll get well again soon._
> _(spoken emphasis on 'only' or 'just'.)_
> _Equivalent to: I really hope you will listen to the doctor's advice, and if you do, you'll get well again soon._
> 
> I feel unusually tentative about this! __


Again, this sounds quite natural to me, at least in spoken English.

Gaer


----------



## audiolaik

Hello,

This is what I've just found in a grammar book:

'_If + will/would_ can be used with all persons to indicate willingness:

_If he will listen to me, I'll be able to help him.'

_In my humble opinion,  it seems reasonable enough to state that _will_ is possible and acceptable. 

p.s. no mention of  _only _or _just. 


_


----------



## Loob

It's intriguing.

Your grammar book sentence is fine, audio.

Yet if I put it into the second person, I still want to add "only" or "just":
_If you will just listen to me, I'll be able to help you._

I'm probably splitting hairs


----------



## audiolaik

Loob said:


> Yet if I put it into the second person, I still want to add "only" or "just":
> _If you will just listen to me, I'll be able to help you._



It's highly unlikely that I'm right; however, let's agree to disagree, Loob!


----------



## gaer

audiolaik said:


> It's highly unlikely that I'm right; however, let's agree to disagree, Loob!


Why "agree to disagree"? You presented an example from a grammar book. 

Adding "only" or "just" adds emphasis. It does not change the basic structure of your sentence, but it reflects a habit of native speakers.


----------



## Thomas1

Yo Iuh said:


> Sorry Thomas if I did sound a bit harsh.
> 
> 1. I don't think that the correctness of a given form is related to its use, not matter how generally it is used. The 2 million G hits make it acceptable though, as I stated in my previous post.
> 
> 2. It is an interesting argument. However, one should use "if you are not willing to" and not "if you won't" or "if you will not". Once again, it's acceptable, and widely used, but it's not correct.
> [...]


This usage in question is correct and if you're interested I will be happy to provide sources to back up what some members (me included) have written.  As for now Loob has given you most of the cases where _will _is grammatically correct in if clauses:


Loob said:


> Funnily enough, I'm not quite sure I agree, audio. Sorry for being so perverse. I think that B will only work if you add the word "only" or "just" after "will", making it a hope on the part of the speaker.
> 
> I'm having great difficulty working out the logic of my position, though. Here's my best attempt for the moment...
> 
> I think I see four circumstances in which "will" _(= be willing_) would be used in an 'if' clause.
> 
> (1) In a negative condition: _if you won't listen to the doctor, you won't get better. _
> This is equivalent to: _if you refuse to listen to the doctor, you won't get better. _
> 
> _(2)_ In an affirmative condition where the action is habitual_: if you will go to work wearing jeans, it's not surprising you keep getting fired._
> _(NB the spoken emphasis is on 'will'.)_
> _Equivalent to: if you insist on going to work wearing jeans, it's not surprising you keep getting fired. _
> 
> _(3)_ In an affirmative condition which is part of an offer:_ if you will step this way, I will show you to your room._
> _(spoken emphasis on 'step', not 'will'.)_
> _Equivalent to: Please step this way, and I will show you to your room._
> 
> _(4)_ In an affirmative condition which represents a hope:_ if you will *only[just]* listen to the doctor's advice, you'll get well again soon._
> _(spoken emphasis on 'only' or 'just'.)_
> _Equivalent to: I really hope you will listen to the doctor's advice, and if you do, you'll get well again soon._
> 
> I feel unusually tentative about this! __
> 
> 
> _Edit: darn it, I've actually thought of a fifth. But that's rather a different case, so I'll leave things the way they are and come back to that one later!_


Yet, I think that B is wrong here even if there were _only_ or _just_.
Let's have a look at the original post once again:


ofriendragon said:


> What about this question?  Are A and B correct?
> If you ____ the doctor's advice, you will become well again soon.
> A. listen to
> B. will listen
> C. are going to take
> D. receive
> 
> Thanks in advance.


The answer B lacks the preposition _to_ which makes it ungrammatical and in consequence wrong. Thus the correct answer is A.


Loob said:


> It's intriguing.
> 
> Your grammar book sentence is fine, audio.
> 
> Yet if I put it into the second person, I still want to add "only" or "just":
> _If you will just listen to me, I'll be able to help you._
> 
> I'm probably splitting hairs


This, I think, stems from the fact that if you tell someone a sentence with this kind of construction directly _just_ and_ only_ make the whole utterance sound kinder and nicer. Please correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't _If you will listen to me..._ sound sort of harsh or simply carry over rather negative connotations?

Tom


----------



## audiolaik

gaer said:


> Why "agree to disagree"?



I have a feeling that Loob remains somehow unconvinced that _will_ is possible, and that's the reason for using the phrase; I'm of the opinion that it is acceptable.

p.s. warm greetings for Loob!




Thomas1 said:


> The answer B lacks the preposition _to_ which makes it ungrammatical and in consequence wrong. Thus the correct answer is A.
> Tom



You've just hit the nail on the head!!! However, if there was _to, _the sentence would be grammatically correct since that is the problem we've been squabbling about, so to say.


----------



## gaer

audiolaik said:


> I have a feeling that Loob remains somehow unconvinced that _will_ is possible, and that's the reason for using the phrase; I'm of the opinion that it is acceptable.


Ah, I misunderstood that. I thought Loob's example sentences were good. I just looked at them without trying to generalize rules from them. 


> You've just hit the nail on the head!!! However, if there was _to, _the sentence would be grammatically correct since that is the problem we've been squabbling about, so to say.


Unbelievable. I completely missed that fact that "to" was missing below!

If you ____ the doctor's advice, you will become well again soon.
A. listen to

B. will listen _*to*_

I think most natives assumed that the "to" was there all along, overlooking the omission. 

Gaer


----------



## audiolaik

gaer said:


> I think most natives assumed that the "to" was there all along, overlooking the omission.


Not only natives, gaer!


----------



## Thomas1

I've just gave myself a browse of a grammar text book which includes the following sentence:
_If you will/would wait a moment I will see if Mr. Jones is free._

You can pick either _will _or _would_.
Does the sentence sound fine please?

Tom


----------



## audiolaik

Thomas1 said:


> I've just gave myselg a browse of a grammar text book which includes the following sentence:
> _I you will/would wait a moment I will see if Mr. Jones is free._
> 
> You can pick either _will _or _would_.
> Does the sentence sound fine please?
> 
> Tom



It's a polite request. In other words, it means _Please wait._


----------



## gaer

audiolaik said:


> It's a polite request. In other words, it means _Please wait._


True, and it also shows, again, the overlap between future and the meaning of "being willing to":

_I you will/would wait a moment I will see if Mr. Jones is free._

If you are willing to wait (do not mind wiating) a moment, I will see if Mr. Jones is free.

With "would", I believe I've heard this more often in very formal, polite situations:

_I you would not (wouldn't) mind waiting a moment, I will see if Mr. Jones is free._

I believe the reason this thread continues to attract attention is due to the fact that the phrases in question are very basic and used more by feel than by logic by native speakers. 

I believe this is also common, perhaps more so in the US, at least:


_I you don't mind waiting a moment, I will see if Mr. Jones is free._


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Just when you thought the discussion was over and done with, I'd like to transfer it to the past tense, including another meaning of will/would:

Consider these sentences:

1a) If it rained, he would bring his umbrella.
1b) He always brought his umbrella on a rainy day.

2a) If it rains, he will bring his umbrella.
2b) He always brings his umbrella on a rainy day.

I understand 1a) to mean exactly the same as 1b), while 2a) means the same as 2b). Is this assumption correct, i.e. can I use will to indicate habit in the present tense as well as in the past tense, using would? Does the conditional if-clause affect the habitual aspect of will/would? Or am I barking up the wrong 'would-en plant' here? 

/Wilma


----------



## Thomas1

audiolaik said:


> It's a polite request. In other words, it means _Please wait._


Yup, I know.  The reason I asked the question was that it doesn't contain _only/just_ and the request is direct. Basing upon what Loob wrote I thought it would run it past natives to check whether they would be more willing to use this sentence with any of them. Anyway, judging form Gaer's answer I guess it's fine without them.


----------



## gaer

Wilma_Sweden said:


> Just when you thought the discussion was over and done with, I'd like to transfer it to the past tense, including another meaning of will/would:
> 
> Consider these sentences:
> 
> 1a) If it rained, he would bring his umbrella.
> 1b) He always brought his umbrella on a rainy day.


I think both say the same thing.


> 2a) If it rains, he will bring his umbrella.
> 2b) He always brings his umbrella on a rainy day.


Those are not the same.

2a may simply refer to one day. We don't know more.
2b refers to a habit. It explains what "he does" whenever it rains and at least suggests that he has done so in the past.

Gaer


----------



## audiolaik

Wilma_Sweden said:


> i.e. can I use will to indicate habit in the present tense as well as in the past tense, using would?



Yes, you're right.

_Will _is used if your intention is to emphasise _the characteristics of the performer rather than the action performed. _

Sometimes, _would _is used to express an action that annoys the speaker, and  _will _may convey the meaning of _obstinate insistance, usually habitual_. 

Besides, the constuction _used to _is often replaced by _would.
_
Hope it helps!


----------



## Thomas1

Wilma_Sweden said:


> Just when you thought the discussion was over and done with, I'd like to transfer it to the past tense, including another meaning of will/would:
> 
> Consider these sentences:
> 
> 1a) If it rained, he would bring his umbrella.
> 1b) He always brought his umbrella on a rainy day.
> 
> 2a) If it rains, he will bring his umbrella.
> 2b) He always brings his umbrella on a rainy day.
> 
> I understand 1a) to mean exactly the same as 1b), while 2a) means the same as 2b). Is this assumption correct, i.e. can I use will to indicate habit in the present tense as well as in the past tense, using would? Does the conditional if-clause affect the habitual aspect of will/would? Or am I barking up the wrong 'would-en plant' here?
> 
> /Wilma


I can't tell about the style of the sentence, though here it can mean something different, but grammatically speaking, yes _will _can be used to express present habitual actions.

Tom

PS: I think this should be a separate thread.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

gaer said:


> 2a may simply refer to one day. We don't know more.
> 2b refers to a habit. It explains what "he does" whenever it rains and at least suggests that he has done so in the past.


OK, in the present tense we need to add some adverbial or other to indicate the context, such as
If it rains in the morning, he will always bring his umbrella. (habit)
If it rains tomorrow, he will bring his umbrella. (future intention)


audiolaik said:


> ...emphasise _the characteristics of the performer rather than the action performed. ... __obstinate insistance, usually habitual_.


Hehe, I was thinking of the man who will take his umbrella at the merest hint of a cloud, but I didn't want to make the sentence too complex... 




Thomas1 said:


> I think this should be a separate thread.


You're probably right, Tom, but I guess that's up to the mods if they want to break it off to a different thread. I don't mind either way, I've got the answers I was looking for.

Thanks to all for helping.

/Wilma


----------



## ofriendragon

*re: B. will listen to*

Yes, I thought it (*to*) was there too, and that's what I wanted to compare with *A. listen to. *

Anyway, I'd say sorry to all that I didn't type like that. But it's not my fault, the original question is so.  . Fortunately, natives knew what I wanted to ask. 


*Thank you all !*


----------



## sungstar

Thank you all for your helpful advice, though some are kind of confusing! 
In a nutshell, in an 'if' clause, if there's an intention, the future tense can be used, but if there's no intention, the future tense is not possible.


----------



## ofriendragon

Thanks to all.

"If + will" could be used in the following cases:
1. result
2. willingness (mainly a BE thing; Americans don't like it)
3. polite requist/offer


----------



## Loob

ofriendragon said:


> Thanks to all.
> 
> "If + will" could be used in the following cases:
> 1. result
> 2. willingness (mainly a BE thing; Americans don't like it)
> 3. polite requist/offer


Yes, 'result' is the 'fifth circumstance' which had occurred to me when I wrote, in post 21:





Loob said:


> _Edit: darn it, I've actually thought of a fifth. But that's rather a different case, so I'll leave things the way they are and come back to that one later!_


Here's an example:
_Loob: I'll come with you to the rugby match if it will make you happy. _
_MrLoob: Thank you dear._

In my sentence, MrLoob's happiness will be the *result* of my going with him to the rugby match. 

I did come back, even though it was more than a year later


----------



## ofriendragon

Thank you for the five circumstances.


----------

