2nd/3rd conditionals and hypotheticals of ability

Question

Hi all,I've only been teaching for about a year and a half, and I've got myself into a muddle over a question an advanced student had regarding the use of 2nd and 3rd conditionals with functions of ability...Let me paint the picture...This, I believe, is a second conditional:If he could see it clearly, he would remember it better.In the third conditional, it would look something like this:If he had been able to see it clearly, he would remember it better. (we can't say "If he had could" can we?...)And of course, the past hypothetical varient:If he had been able to see it clearly, he would have remembered it better.The question is weather the following varient, which sounds OK to me, is a fairsubstitute, and which conditional is it?:If he could have seen it clearly, he would have been able to remember it better.Or what about this subjunctive form, which I think of as a 3rd conditional:If he were able to see it clearly,...... So, I guess my confusion springs from when you can use "could" in the third conditional (if at all!) or whether it's necessary to use "to be able to" instead... I'm sure if I were able to (could!) state the problem clearly, I would be able to solve it myself, but I suspect I'm short of experience.Can anyone help me out here? I don't want to mislead her!Thanks in advance,Huw.

Usenet · Accepted Answer

on 29 Oct 2003:
[nq:1]Hi all, I've only been teaching for about a year and a half, and I've got myself into a muddle ... the picture... This, I believe, is a second conditional: If he could see it clearly, he would remember it better.[/nq]
This is a present conditional. I'm not familiar with your "2nd/3rd conditional" terminology, but it's not important.
[nq:1]In the third conditional, it would look something like this: If he had been able to see it clearly, he would remember it better. (we can't say "If he had could" can we?...)[/nq]
No, but you can say "If he could have seen it clearly,"

This is a past conditional and also a hypothetical. All past conditionals are hypotheticals because what has happened in the past cannot be changed. Therefore, assuming that some other condition had obtained is strictly hypothetical.
[nq:1]And of course, the past hypothetical varient: If he had been able to see it clearly, he would have remembered it better.[/nq]
This is the same past perfect (had been) conditional as in the immediately previous sentence, but the independent clause talks about the past rather than the present.
[nq:1]The question is weather the following varient, which sounds OK to me, is a fair substitute, and which conditional is it?: If he could have seen it clearly, he would have been able to remember it better.[/nq]
It is an informal (read: colloquial) way of saying "If he had been able to see it clearly, he would have been able to remember it better".
Again, it is the same past perfect conditional as before.
[nq:1]Or what about this subjunctive form, which I think of as a 3rd conditional: If he were able to see it clearly,...[/nq]
This is a present subjunctive and is not only stating a hypothetical but also an unreal condition. In the pervious past (perfect) conditionals, the possibility that he actually could have seen it more clearly exists he might have been able to get closer, or he might have been able to put on his glasses or to use a telescope etc but with the present subjunctive, there is no possibility that can see it more clearly.
[nq:1]... So, I guess my confusion springs from when you can use "could" in the third conditional (if at all!) ... (could!) state the problem clearly, I would be able to solve it myself, but I suspect I'm short of experience.[/nq]
Yes, I think you can use "could" in what you call the third conditional. Eg,
A: Why didn't you turn off the power?
B: Believe me, if I could have done that, I would have. or: Believe me, if I had been able to do that, I would have.

They both mean the same thing, but the first is colloquial and the second is formal.

Usenet · Answer

on 29 Oct 2003:
[nq:1]Hi all, I've only been teaching for about a year and a half, and I've got myself into a muddle ... the picture... This, I believe, is a second conditional: If he could see it clearly, he would remember it better.[/nq]
This is a present conditional. I'm not familiar with your "2nd/3rd conditional" terminology, but it's not important.
[nq:1]In the third conditional, it would look something like this: If he had been able to see it clearly, he would remember it better. (we can't say "If he had could" can we?...)[/nq]
No, but you can say "If he could have seen it clearly,"

This is a past conditional and also a hypothetical. All past conditionals are hypotheticals because what has happened in the past cannot be changed. Therefore, assuming that some other condition had obtained is strictly hypothetical.
[nq:1]And of course, the past hypothetical varient: If he had been able to see it clearly, he would have remembered it better.[/nq]
This is the same past perfect (had been) conditional as in the immediately previous sentence, but the independent clause talks about the past rather than the present.
[nq:1]The question is weather the following varient, which sounds OK to me, is a fair substitute, and which conditional is it?: If he could have seen it clearly, he would have been able to remember it better.[/nq]
It is an informal (read: colloquial) way of saying "If he had been able to see it clearly, he would have been able to remember it better".
Again, it is the same past perfect conditional as before.
[nq:1]Or what about this subjunctive form, which I think of as a 3rd conditional: If he were able to see it clearly,...[/nq]
This is a present subjunctive and is not only stating a hypothetical but also an unreal condition. In the pervious past (perfect) conditionals, the possibility that he actually could have seen it more clearly exists he might have been able to get closer, or he might have been able to put on his glasses or to use a telescope etc but with the present subjunctive, there is no possibility that he can see it more clearly.
[nq:1]... So, I guess my confusion springs from when you can use "could" in the third conditional (if at all!) ... (could!) state the problem clearly, I would be able to solve it myself, but I suspect I'm short of experience.[/nq]
Yes, I think you can use "could" in what you call the third conditional. Eg,
A: Why didn't you turn off the power?
B: Believe me, if I could have done that, I would have. or: Believe me, if I had been able to do that, I would have.

They both mean the same thing, but the first is colloquial and the second is formal.

Usenet · Answer

Huw at (Email Removed) says in
[nq:1]Hi all, I've only been teaching for about a year and a half, and I've got myself into a muddle ... of course, the past hypothetical varient: If he had been able to see it clearly, he would have remembered it[/nq]
Or in American English: "If he would have been able to see it clearly, he would have remembered it."
The "if he would have" style is popular enough and venerable enough in the USA, even among mainstream journalists on television, to be regarded as legitimate even outside (of) the USA, and so this newsgroup's FAQ document should give it the seal (big honk!) of approval.
[nq:1](. . .)[/nq]
Quentin Burward.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]on 29 Oct 2003:[/nq]
But we may not know what happened in the past. "If he missed the class because he was sick, I'll probably hear from him." "If there was an ancient community where this hill is now, artifacts are presumably buried here."
...
[nq:2]The question is weather the following varient, which sounds OK ... clearly, he would have been able to remember it better.[/nq]
[nq:1]It is an informal (read: colloquial) way of saying "If he had been able to see it clearly, he would have been able to remember it better".[/nq]
I don't see one as more formal than the other, and I'd always prefer "could have seen" to "had been able to see" on the grounds of concision. Am I missing a nuance?
...

Jerry Friedman

Usenet · Answer

on 30 Oct 2003:
[nq:2]on 29 Oct 2003: This is a present conditional. I'm ... assuming that some other condition had obtained is strictly hypothetical.[/nq]
[nq:1]But we may not know what happened in the past. "If he missed the class because he was sick, I'll probably hear from him." "If there was an ancient community where this hill is now, artifacts are presumably buried here."[/nq]
Yes, you're correct here, but these are different kinds of sentences. The condition about his being sick is one of many reasons he might have missed the class, but the condition about his not having been able to see it clearly offers no reasons why he wasn't able to see it clearly. The OP's condition was about ability and not possible reasons for failure, but your sentence is semantically different. To be the same type of sentence, it would have to be "If he had been able to come to class, . . . ", and now the "I'll probably hear from him" clause doesn't fit.
[nq:2]It is an informal (read: colloquial) way of saying "If ... clearly, he would have been able to remember it better".[/nq]
[nq:1]I don't see one as more formal than the other, and I'd always prefer "could have seen" to "had been able to see" on the grounds of concision. Am I missing a nuance?[/nq]
I think so, but others may disagree. Formality usually requires more words than informality, which is one clue to which expression is more formal. Generally, writers of formal prose will probably use "had been able to do" rather than "could have done"; at least, that is my impression.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]on 30 Oct 2003:[/nq]
[nq:2]But we may not know what happened in the past. ... where this hill is now, artifacts are presumably buried here."[/nq]
[nq:1]Yes, you're correct here, but these are different kinds of sentences. The condition about his being sick is one of ... able to come to class, . . . ", and now the "I'll probably hear from him" clause doesn't fit.[/nq]
They are indeed different kinds of sentences, but they're still conditionals. I was pointing out that your statement, "All past conditionals are hypotheticals because what has happened in the past cannot be changed," was too sweeping.
[nq:2]... I don't see one as more formal than the ... on the grounds of concision. Am I missing a nuance?[/nq]
[nq:1]I think so, but others may disagree. Formality usually requires more words than informality, which is one clue to which ... prose will probably use "had been able to do" rather than "could have done"; at least, that is my impression.[/nq]
I see it the other way. "Where" is acceptable in formal writing, but not "where at". Same on stylistic rather than grammatical grounds with "now" and "at this particular point in time".

Jerry Friedman

Usenet · Answer

on 31 Oct 2003:
[nq:2]on 30 Oct 2003:[/nq]
[nq:2]Yes, you're correct here, but these are different kinds of ... now the "I'll probably hear from him" clause doesn't fit.[/nq]
[nq:1]They are indeed different kinds of sentences, but they're still conditionals. I was pointing out that your statement, "All past conditionals are hypotheticals because what has happened in the past cannot be changed," was too sweeping.[/nq]
It is a sweeping generalization, but "If he missed the class because he was sick" is a hypothetical, sure as shootin', and no matter what the hypothesis, the reason that he wasn't there cannot be changed. I don't see how I have erred, nor that my sweeping generalization is ever invalid, but I am willing to be instructed..
[nq:2]I think so, but others may disagree. Formality usually requires ... than "could have done"; at least, that is my impression.[/nq]
[nq:1]I see it the other way. "Where" is acceptable in formal writing, but not "where at". Same on stylistic rather than grammatical grounds with "now" and "at this particular point in time".[/nq]
Here I did not make a sweeping generalization about the length of an expression and its formality. I said "usually". I agree with you here. Each set of choices has to be evaluated on its own merits rather than on anything as arbitrary as length.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]on 31 Oct 2003:[/nq]
[nq:2]... They are indeed different kinds of sentences, but they're ... happened in the past cannot be changed," was too sweeping.[/nq]
[nq:1]It is a sweeping generalization, but "If he missed the class because he was sick" is a hypothetical, sure as ... see how I have erred, nor that my sweeping generalization is ever invalid, but I am willing to be instructed.[/nq]
Maybe I'm the one that erred, by misunderstanding "hypothetical", for example. What would be an example of an "if" clause that's not a hypothetical?
[nq:2]I see it the other way. "Where" is acceptable in ... grounds with "now" and "at this particular point in time".[/nq]
[nq:1]Here I did not make a sweeping generalization about the length of an expression and its formality. I said "usually". I agree with you here. Each set of choices has to be evaluated on its own merits rather than on anything as arbitrary as length.[/nq]
Okay, we agree on that. However, if there's a rule of them (I'll leave in that typo for "thumb" because it's so weird), I suspect it's that the more concise version is more formal. Also, the statement that formality usually requires more words is, from my perspective, directly responsible for a great deal of writing that, to be perfectly frank, I do not find as strongly contributory to my enjoyment of reading as I might were it written with a greater focus on reducing the number of words insofar as possible.

Jerry Friedman

Usenet · Answer

the inimitable jerry (Email Removed) (Jerry

@posting.google.com on 04 Nov 2003:
[nq:1]@130.133.1.4>...[/nq]
[nq:1]Maybe I'm the one that erred, by misunderstanding "hypothetical", for example. What would be an example of an "if" clause that's not a hypothetical?[/nq]
All conditions are hypotheticals in one sense,
because they are notyet known to be or to have
been the case; ie they are not categoricals.
Some hypotheticals, however, are unreal and
some are real possibilities. We can omit the
unreal possibilities; they will never come to
pass, so everything about them is hypothetical.
The real possibilities then fall into three
categories: past, present, and future.
Past and present hypotheticals are useful for
deducing what has already occurred and,
therefore, cannot be changed, and what must,
should, or might happen, some of which can be
changed and some of which cannot. Future
hypotheticals are useful for predicting real
possibilities.
As long as we don't know what has or will
happen, statements about events are of
necessity hypothetical. They are all
suppositions or hypotheses that require
verification/falsification.
I think there cannot be a conditional that is
not hypothetical in that sense. The only
serious distinctions that can be made are,
first, real or unreal condition, and, second,
has already or has not yet occurred.
I might have missed something important, and my
brief analysis here might be simplistic rather
than simple. And even if I'm right about
this, what I've said may not be useful
[nq:2]Here I did not make a sweeping generalization about the ... own merits rather than on anything as arbitrary as length.[/nq]
[nq:1]Okay, we agree on that. However, if there's a rule of them (I'll leave in that typo for "thumb" because ... reading as I might were it written with a greater focus on reducing the number of words insofar as possible.[/nq]
Gotcha.

2nd/3rd conditionals and hypotheticals of ability

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions