# If it's attached again, it was needed [Conditional]



## needer

An action in the past with present result.
Is the following sentence correct?
If not, what is the correct way of putting it?

They do what is best for you. If it's attached again, it was needed.


----------



## e2efour

To refer to an action in the past, you need a past tense.

_It's/It is attached_ is not one.

It is difficult to comment without knowing the context, e.g. what is meant by _attached._


----------



## DonnyB

It doesn't work for me, I'm afraid.  

It sounds oddly stilted and if it's meant to reflect a real-life scenario, I suspect a native speaker would find a more idiomatic way of expressing the idea.


----------



## needer

e2efour said:


> To refer to an action in the past, you need a past tense.
> 
> _It's/It is attached_ is not one.
> 
> It is difficult to comment without knowing the context, e.g. what is meant by _attached._



Let's see the context this way:


An assistant comes to manager talking about an attached documents to an article that she received.
Manager gives his opinion this way.

By saying, "lf you see the document is attached to the article again, they thought that it was necessary."

What is the correct way of saying it with if_clause? Any suggestions?


----------



## Uncle Jack

Are you saying that the manager is speaking about a potential future occurrence, when the assistant *next *receives an article with a document attached? Or are you referring to the article and documents the assistant has just received?

I don't understand what you mean by an "article".


----------



## e2efour

If you are talking about a file in an email, you would say _the email contains an attachment.
_
But you may be talking about a document that has been enclosed with an article (e.g. _if you see that the document has been enclosed with the article again_).


----------



## needer

Uncle Jack said:


> Are you saying that the manager is speaking about a potential future occurrence, when the assistant *next *receives an article with a document attached? Or are you referring to the article and documents the assistant has just received?
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by an "article".



The assistant has just received a paper article.



e2efour said:


> If you are talking about a file in an email, you would say _the email contains an attachment.
> _
> But you may be talking about a document that has been enclosed with an article (e.g. _if you see that the document has been enclosed with the article again_).


Second one, enclose.
What would be the correct way of saying it without using " you see that " at the beginning in a conditional form?


----------



## dojibear

needer said:


> They do what is best for you. If it's attached again, it was needed.





needer said:


> "lf you see the document is attached to the article again, they thought that it was necessary."





needer said:


> What would be the correct way of saying it without using " you see that " at the beginning in a conditional form?



_"If they sent the attachment, they thought we need it."_

That uses "if" to say this:

_"They sent the attachment because they thought we would need the attachment."_


----------



## Uncle Jack

needer said:


> The assistant has just received a paper article.


If you are referring to the article and attached documents that have been received, then "again" appears to be inappropriate (it would be fine if you were referring to a hypothetical future occasion should the same thing happen again), and both the if-clause and the main clause need to be in the past tense, as dojibear has written:


dojibear said:


> "If they sent the attachment, they thought we need it."


The first part of the original quote also needs to be in the past tense, since you are describing a specific event that happened in the past:
They did what was best for you.​
This isn't idiomatic, but at least it is grammatical and fits the situation.

However, your use of the present tense and "again" suggests that the speaker was referring to a repeated situation and what the hearer should do about it in the future. Is this something you have heard or read, or something you have written yourself?


----------



## needer

dojibear said:


> _"If they sent the attachment, they thought we need it."_
> 
> That uses "if" to say this:
> 
> _"They sent the attachment because they thought we would need the attachment."_


What type of conditionals is it? Because both of the tenses are in simple past.

But I don't want to use the verb " send " here. I want to use " attach".
The assistant has just received the article and instantly went to the manager.
So the manager has to use present tense, as he is seeing the document is attached at the moment.

Isn't it correct?

Or should it be:
If it was attached again, they thought we needed it.



Uncle Jack said:


> If you are referring to the article and attached documents that have been received, then "again" appears to be inappropriate (it would be fine if you were referring to a hypothetical future occasion should the same thing happen again), and both the if-clause and the main clause need to be in the past tense, as dojibear has written:
> The first part of the original quote also needs to be in the past tense, since you are describing a specific event that happened in the past:
> They did what was best for you.​
> This isn't idiomatic, but at least it is grammatical and fits the situation.
> 
> However, your use of the present tense and "again" suggests that the speaker was referring to a repeated situation and what the hearer should do about it in the future. Is this something you have heard or read, or something you have written yourself?


It's my writing. "Again" should be there, as it had happened before that too. It's not about future.


----------



## Uncle Jack

needer said:


> It's my writing. "Again" should be there, as it had happened before that too. It's not about future.


I don't understand the connection with the previous occurrence.

In the if-clause, you can use either the present tense (present situation: the document is still attached), the past tense (past action: the sender attached the document) or (in BrE, but perhaps not in AmE) the present perfect (past action with significance in the present). The main clause appears to require the present tense, since the need is in the present/future:
If it is attached, it is needed
It it was attached, it is needed
It it has been attached, it is needed​
You cannot use the present tense with "again", since "again" refers to the action of attaching the document, but I cannot see why you would say "again" at all.


----------



## needer

Uncle Jack said:


> I don't understand the connection with the previous occurrence.
> 
> In the if-clause, you can use either the present tense (present situation: the document is still attached), the past tense (past action: the sender attached the document) or (in BrE, but perhaps not in AmE) the present perfect (past action with significance in the present). The main clause appears to require the present tense, since the need is in the present/future:
> If it is attached, it is needed
> It it was attached, it is needed
> It it has been attached, it is needed​
> You cannot use the present tense with "again", since "again" refers to the action of attaching the document, but I cannot see why you would say "again" at all.



In your three examples:

first sentence is zero conditional, but what about second sentence. if clause is past simple, main clause should be would+ verb.

Also, it's true that need is in the present but those people ( senders of the article) made that assumption ( that we may need the document ) in the past.

Couldn't "Again"  be used in the present, even if the incident happened once before present time?


----------



## Uncle Jack

needer said:


> In your three examples:
> 
> first sentence is zero conditional, but what about second sentence. if clause is past simple, main clause should be would+ verb.


Take a look at your grammar book, and see how the various types of conditionals are described. Here are the descriptions from the excellent Conditional | English Grammar | EF website:
Zero: General truths
Type 1: A possible condition and its probable result
Type 2: A hypothetical condition and its probable result
Type 3: An unreal past condition and its probable result in the past
Mixed: An unreal past condition and its probable result in the present​
What is our situation? It isn't a general truth, because we are talking about a very specific situation. It isn't a possible condition because it actually happened. It isn't hypothetical or unreal. So we find we cannot use any of these forms for our situation.

The reality is a little more complex and, although type 2, type 3 and mixed conditionals have their tenses set more or less by convention, the zero and/or type 1 conditional can be adapted to suit different situations, including this one. However, when faced with a real situation that isn't a general truth, you would do better to work out the verb tenses for yourself just like you would for any ordinary sentence, and as I did in post #13, rather than look them up in a grammar page on conditional sentences.


needer said:


> Also, it's true that need is in the present but those people ( senders of the article) made that assumption ( that we may need the document ) in the past.


This is correct, so if you want to make reference to the sender of the article, you would use the past tense:
If it is attached, the sender thought it was needed.​I have chosen the least likely if-clause just to show that it is possible to mix tenses in a real situation, although using the simple past or present perfect for the if-clause is a lot more likely than the present tense here.


needer said:


> Couldn't "Again" be used in the present, even if the incident happened once before present time?


No. It the repeated event was in the past, then you have to use a past tense verb: "If it was attached again...".

However, I still don't see the significance of "again". Are you suggesting that if this was the first time an article had been sent with an attached document, then the document would not really be needed, and that it is only needed because they have done the same thing again?


----------



## needer

Uncle Jack said:


> Take a look at your grammar book, and see how the various types of conditionals are described. Here are the descriptions from the excellent Conditional | English Grammar | EF website:
> Zero: General truths
> Type 1: A possible condition and its probable result
> Type 2: A hypothetical condition and its probable result
> Type 3: An unreal past condition and its probable result in the past
> Mixed: An unreal past condition and its probable result in the present​
> What is our situation? It isn't a general truth, because we are talking about a very specific situation. It isn't a possible condition because it actually happened. It isn't hypothetical or unreal. So we find we cannot use any of these forms for our situation.
> 
> The reality is a little more complex and, although type 2, type 3 and mixed conditionals have their tenses set more or less by convention, the zero and/or type 1 conditional can be adapted to suit different situations, including this one. However, when faced with a real situation that isn't a general truth, you would do better to work out the verb tenses for yourself just like you would for any ordinary sentence, and as I did in post #13, rather than look them up in a grammar page on conditional sentences.
> This is correct, so if you want to make reference to the sender of the article, you would use the past tense:
> If it is attached, the sender thought it was needed.​I have chosen the least likely if-clause just to show that it is possible to mix tenses in a real situation, although using the simple past or present perfect for the if-clause is a lot more likely than the present tense here.


A pretty comprehensive explanation.

"If it is attached, the sender thought it was needed."

Is more or less like the sentence I made a the beginning of this thread.
_"If it's attached again, it was needed"_ 

Is it grammatically correct to use conditionals in a real situation like this? Since I haven't seen this rule in any grammar book, is it correct or should I avoid using conditionals in a real situation?



Uncle Jack said:


> No. It the repeated event was in the past, then you have to use a past tense verb: "If it was attached again...".
> However, I still don't see the significance of "again". Are you suggesting that if this was the first time an article had been sent with an attached document, then the document would not really be needed, and that it is only needed because they have done the same thing again?



First time the event happened in the past ( ie, senders sent that document enclosed with the article). For the second time, they resend them which is at the present time. We are talking about the second incident at the present time.


----------



## Uncle Jack

needer said:


> "If it is attached, the sender thought it was needed."
> 
> Is more or less like the sentence I made a the beginning of this thread.
> _"If it's attached again, it was needed"_


The differences are important. These are:

The omission of "again" with a present tense if-clause.
The explicit mention of the sender with a past tense main clause.



needer said:


> Is it grammatically correct to use conditionals in a real situation like this? Since I haven't seen this rule in any grammar book, is it correct or should I avoid using conditionals in a real situation?


It most certainly is grammatically correct, but you might think of them as being something other than what grammar books call conditional sentences. I recall a native speaker using an expression for if-sentences describing real situations, but I cannot remember what it was.

I imagine the reason they are not listed in grammar books is because they obey the usual rules of verb tense. The tenses used in type 2, type 3 and mixed conditionals would be impossible to guess from other verb tense rules, and although it would be possible to guess the tenses in zero and type 1 conditionals, it would also be possible to guess wrongly, without guidance from a grammar book.


----------



## needer

For mos


Uncle Jack said:


> The differences are important. These are:
> 
> The omission of "again" with a present tense if-clause.
> The explicit mention of the sender with a past tense main clause.
> It most certainly is grammatically correct, but you might think of them as being something other than what grammar books call conditional sentences. I recall a native speaker using an expression for if-sentences describing real situations, but I cannot remember what it was.
> 
> I imagine the reason they are not listed in grammar books is because they obey the usual rules of verb tense. The tenses used in type 2, type 3 and mixed conditionals would be impossible to guess from other verb tense rules, and although it would be possible to guess the tenses in zero and type 1 conditionals, it would also be possible to guess wrongly, without guidance from a grammar book.


For most parts it's resolved for me.
Still I couldn't figure it out why usage of "again" is inappropriate here. Is it because the tense is in simple present or is it because it's an if clause?
I appreciate any further explanation in advance.

This is one example from cambridge dictionary:
If he does it again I'll have to tell him.

High regards


----------



## Uncle Jack

"Again" with a present tense verb refers to the future, as in the example you quote from Cambridge Dictionary (remember to capitalise proper nouns). In your example, "again" refers to something that happened in the past, so it cannot be used with a present tense verb.


----------



## needer

Uncle Jack said:


> "Again" with a present tense verb refers to the future, as in the example you quote from Cambridge Dictionary (remember to capitalise proper nouns). In your example, "again" refers to something that happened in the past, so it cannot be used with a present tense verb.



So, there is no way to imply that this action happens ( or has happened ) for the second time?
To suggest that it had happened before also?

( I mean both times the action definitely happened in the past, but since the assistant announces the recent action to the manager at the present, from the manager's point of view, it's a present action)


Although, based on your explanation in post 14, verb tense must be past to use it with 'again'.


----------



## Via32

What is the reason you can omit _would _in the first sentence but it's there in the second, dojibear?



dojibear said:


> _"If they sent the attachment, they thought we need it."_
> 
> That uses "if" to say this:
> 
> _"They sent the attachment because they thought we would need the attachment."_


----------



## Uncle Jack

needer said:


> So, there is no way to imply that this action happens ( or has happened ) for the second time?
> To suggest that it had happened before also?


Yes there is, use the past tense. However, the fact that this is a repeated occurrence appears to make no difference to the outcome (the document is needed whether this is is the first time was attached or the hundredth), so "again" serves no purpose in the if-clause, which describes the condition for applying the main clause.


----------



## needer

Uncle Jack said:


> Yes there is, use the past tense. However, the fact that this is a repeated occurrence appears to make no difference to the outcome (the document is needed whether this is is the first time was attached or the hundredth), so "again" serves no purpose in the if-clause, which describes the condition for applying the main clause.


Much gratitude.


----------



## JJXR

Uncle Jack said:


> If it is attached, the sender thought it was needed.


When talking about the future, would the same be expressed in the following way:

_If it is attached, the sender *will have thought* it *was* needed._ (i.e. if we find it attached tomorrow, the sender will have thought it was needed).

Is it correct to use "will have thought" and "was" like that?


----------



## Uncle Jack

The structure is fine, using a modal verb and the perfect tense to look back into the past from some point in the future:
If, after they send the article next week, you find the document is attached, they must have thought it was needed.​(I have added to your sentence to make it clear that everything it contains occurs in the future).

In many ways, using "will" is no different from using "must", but "will" places all the emphasis on the time of the thing, which is inappropriate here. You cannot, for instance, be sure that they don't already think it is needed, even though it hasn't yet been attached (we don't use the future perfect for things that have already happened, even though the point of reference is in the future), and in any case the time of their thought is unimportant to the situation. For a definite action, the future perfect is fine:
If, after they send the article next week, you find the document is attached, it will have been them who attached it.​


JJXR said:


> Is it correct to use "will have thought" and "was" like that?


The combination of tenses is fine, just that it does not fit this particular example.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the explanation, Uncle Jack.


----------



## needer

Via32 said:


> What is the reason you can omit _would _in the first sentence but it's there in the second, dojibear?


If "would" is added to the the if-sentence, it makes it a second conditional, i.e. a hypothetical, unreal condition, but this is not a hypothesis.
This incident has already happened.


----------



## kngram

Sorry Uncle Jack and needer,

it seems that the subordinate does not appreciate the care of the chief editor of the local newspaper about his subordinate. It seems that in English, the editor-in-chief would convey his opinion on the care of the main regional editorial office on their small local editorial office as follows: If it is attached again, that is necessary.
The reason of such grammar is that in opinion of the chief editor anything that the main editorial office will do is really necessary.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

needer said:


> What type of conditionals is it? Because both of the tenses are in simple past.
> 
> But I don't want to use the verb " send " here. I want to use " attach".
> The assistant has just received the article and instantly went to the manager.
> So the manager has to use present tense, as he is seeing the document is attached at the moment.
> 
> Isn't it correct?
> 
> Or should it be:
> If it was attached again, they thought we needed it.


It's not a conditional sentence at all. _ If_ here means given _that_, so the normal rules for tense sequencing in conditional sentences don't apply.

_Given that it was attached again, they thought we needed it_ is perfectly correct.


----------



## needer

kngram said:


> Sorry Uncle Jack and needer,
> 
> it seems that the subordinate does not appreciate the care of the chief editor of the local newspaper about his subordinate. It seems that in English, the editor-in-chief would convey his opinion on the care of the main regional editorial office on their small local editorial office as follows: If it is attached again, that is necessary.
> The reason of such grammar is that in opinion of the chief editor anything that the main editorial office will do is really necessary.



Except with " again ", that according to Uncle Jack cannot be used with present simple in conditional. So we decided to use past simple in both parts of the sentence.


----------



## Uncle Jack

needer said:


> Except with " again ", that according to Uncle Jack cannot be used with present simple.


It can be used with the present simple, but it refers to the future - see post #10.

In post #12, you said it was not writing about the future, so post #13 and subsequent posts of mine are written with this in mind.


----------



## kngram

Dear needer, thanks for your reply,
If you mean the sentence: If it was attached, that was necessary, both sentences will remain zero conditionals.
Both express that something was (is, in case of my example) always true.
Uncle Jack's linguistic experience speaks in favour of your decision.


----------



## needer

kngram said:


> Dear needer, thanks for your reply,
> If you mean the sentence: If it was attached, that was necessary, both sentences will remain zero conditionals.
> Both express that something was (is, in case of my example) always true.
> Uncle Jack's linguistic experience speaks in favour of your decision.


The sentence is not a zero conditional.
Zero conditional is about a general situation that is always true. like according to science or laws of nature, or things that always happen under certain conditions.
In this case however, it is one specific incident that may not be true in other situations, e.g. with other publishers, managers and assistants and may not happen again in this situation either.

In a way, we can say it is not a conditional sentence because main clause is not conditioned by if-clause so that  whenever this happens, that happens. It's a one-time speculation of the manager based on his experience.

So,
_If it was attached again ,which it was, they thought it was needed._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

needer said:


> In a way, we can say it is not a conditional sentence because main clause is not conditioned by if-clause, So that, whenever this happens, that happens. It's a one time speculation of the manager based on his experience.
> 
> So,
> _If it was attached again ,which it was, they thought it was needed._


You shouldn't be talking about conditionals at all.  This is not a conditional sentence.


----------



## needer

Thomas Tompion said:


> You shouldn't be talking about conditionals at all.  This is not a conditional sentence.


I see, not even zero or real conditional.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

needer said:


> I see, not even zero or real conditional.


Not conditional, in any way.  I did tell you this some time back.


----------



## kngram

needer said:


> The sentence is not a zero conditional.
> Zero conditional is about a general situation that is always true. like according to science or laws of nature, or things that always happen under certain conditions.
> In this case however, it is one specific incident that may not be true in other situations, e.g. with other publishers, managers and assistants and may not happen again in this situation either.
> 
> In a way, we can say it is not a conditional sentence because main clause is not conditioned by if-clause so that whenever this happens, that happens. It's a one-time speculation of the manager based on his experience.
> 
> So,
> _If it was attached again ,which it was, they thought it was needed._


These are textbook examples of Zero conditionals: If John is cursing , it means that he is very angry. If I got home late, my mom scolded me. If she was sad, she just stared into the distance without saying a word.


----------



## needer

kngram said:


> These are textbook examples of Zero conditionals: If John is cursing , it means that he is very angry. If I got home late, my mom scolded me. If she was sad, she just stared into the distance without saying a word.


Yes they are conditionals. Main clause is conditioned by the if-clause. It means any time that condition fulfils, the result is inevitable, considering tense of the verbs. In this example however, the situation is not generalized to similar situations and it is not subject to condition. It just happened.


----------



## needer

Thomas Tompion said:


> Not conditional, in any way.  I did tell you this some time back.


Yes, I noticed your reply. Thank you Thomas Tompion.


----------



## kngram

needer said:


> Yes they are conditionals. Main clause is conditioned by the if-clause. It means any time that condition fulfils, the result is inevitable, considering tense of the verbs. In this example however, the situation is not generalized to similar situations and it is not subject to condition. It just happened.


Under the suppositiones you indicated, the following could be a variant:
It had been attached again, so they thought it was necessary.


----------



## JJXR

Uncle Jack said:


> If, after they send the article next week, you find the document is attached, it *will have been them who attached* it.


If I modify the bolded part in your sentence, Uncle Jack, does my version below convey approximately the same meaning:

_If, after they send the article next week, you find the document is attached, it *will be them who have attached* it._

Is this new structure also grammatical?


----------



## Uncle Jack

JJXR said:


> If I modify the bolded part in your sentence, Uncle Jack, does my version below convey approximately the same meaning:
> 
> _If, after they send the article next week, you find the document is attached, it *will be them who have attached* it._
> 
> Is this new structure also grammatical?


I don't really know. "Attach" has to use a tense that can refer to the past, so your present perfect is fine, but I don't really like "will be" in the main clause. I expect it is grammatical, but not as good as the future perfect.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, Uncle Jack.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JJXR said:


> If I modify the bolded part in your sentence, Uncle Jack, does my version below convey approximately the same meaning:
> 
> _If, after they send the article next week, you find the document is attached, it *will be them who have attached* it._
> 
> Is this new structure also grammatical?


I'd say not.  It should be_* It will be they who have attached it*_.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks TT.


----------



## lingobingo

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'd say not. It should be_* It will be they who have attached it*_.


----------



## e2efour

Rather than say _It will be they/them who have attached it_, I prefer the rather more idiomatic _They will be the ones who ..._
(See It is (us/we) who......)

However, this thread has got a long way from the original question, to say the least!


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for your responses, lingobingo and e2efour.


Uncle Jack said:


> If, after they send the article next week, you find the document is attached, they *must have thought* it *was needed*.


If I take this sentence suggested by Uncle Jack and modify it in one of the following two ways:

_1. If, after they send the article next week, you find the document is attached, they *must be* the ones who *thought *it *was* *needed*.

2. If, after they send the article next week, you find the document is attached, it *must be* they who *thought *it *was* *needed*._

If my sentences are grammatically correct, do their meanings approximate the meaning of Uncle Jack's sentence?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JJXR said:


> Thanks for your responses, lingobingo and e2efour.
> 
> If I take this sentence suggested by Uncle Jack and modify it in one of the following two ways:
> 
> _1. If, after they send the article next week, you find the document is attached, they *must be* the ones who *thought *it *was* *needed*.
> 
> 2. If, after they send the article next week, you find the document is attached, it *must be* they who *thought *it *was* *needed*._
> 
> If my sentences are grammatically correct, do their meanings approximate the meaning of Uncle Jack's sentence?


No, not quite.  In your sentences it's a given that someone (as yet unidentified) had thought it was needed.

In UJ's sentence this is not a given.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the explanation, TT.


JJXR said:


> _1. If, after they send the article next week, you find the document is attached, they *must be* the ones who *thought *it *was* *needed*.
> 
> 2. If, after they send the article next week, you find the document is attached, it *must be* they who *thought *it *was* *needed*._


Would it be correct to replace the simple past "thought" with the present perfect "have thought" in the two quoted sentences? If so, should this "have thought" be followed by "is needed" or "was needed"?


----------

