Again on 'Would' - part 2

Question

Hello,this is a sentence I heard on a TV show the other night: - If it would help you to forget, I could hit you in the head with this candlestick.Can you please help me understand why 'would' is featuring there? I think I understand that it means if it had the effect of,but why 'would'? (Incidentally, shouldn't it also be [...], help you forget, not to forget? But I might be responsible here for jotting it down wrong.)Thanks a lot.H.

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

It is a polite form of "will"  -a gentle form of the future tense.

Henry74 · Answer

Okay.
So, what you mean to say is that the more direct
- If it will help you forget, I can hit you in the head with this candlestick.
would also be grammatical. Am I understanding you correctly?
My problem is that I don't understand If it will help you [...], as a structure. Why is there 'will' in the if-clause?

Thank you
H.

AlpheccaStars · Answer

This is an exception where the future tense describes a possible future state (your being helped), not a present or "universal time" condition.

If you scream (present or "universal" condition), someone will help you (future outcome resulting from that condition).

If it will help you get your work done (a future possibility), we can order a pizza delivery and not take the time to cook dinner.

CalifJim · Answer

Henry74shouldn't it also be [...], help you forget, not to forget?

'to' is optional in the 'help' construction. I don't know of another verb in English with this property.

This will help you forget. / This will help you to forget. (Both correct.)

Henry74Can you please help me understand why 'would' is featuring there?

You are right to see this as an exception to the "rule" that 'will' and 'would' are forbidden in an if-clause.

1. This is typical when the "if" clause contains an "it" that refers to the consequent clause.

If it (~ my hitting you in the head with this candlestick) would/will help ..., I could/can hit you in the head with this candlestick.

Alphecca gave another example like this.

2. A justification for this construction is that the consequent clause does not really express a consequence, but an offer.

3. Alternately, the construction can be explained as an abbreviated form of a double-if construction in which no if-clause contains would.

IF it were true that
[ IF I hit you ..., THEN it would help you forget ]
THEN
[ I could hit you ...].

4. This construction is distantly related to another exceptional use: 'bargaining'. An offer based on reciprocal benefits.

If you'll pay for the pizza, I'll pay for the beer.
If you would pay for the pizza, I would pay for the beer.

CJ

Henry74 · Answer

Thank you Alphecca and Jim.

CalifJim4. This construction is distantly related to another exceptional use: 'bargaining'. An offer based on reciprocal benefits.

I considered reading my sentence as a case of 'bargaining', but I thought this applied only to agents; so, in the end, I wasn't sure if this reading was possible.

CalifJimAlphecca gave another example like this.2. A justification for this construction is that the consequent clause does not really express a consequence, but an offer.

Okay. So, unlike a conditional sentence where the main clause is a consequence of the if-clause, here the consequentiality sort of works in the opposite direction. The if-clause is a possible outcome of what is being offered in the main clause; a benefit resulting from it. (Maybe here is the connection with 'bargaining' that I could not see before).

Come to think of it, maybe I could also say that I can start from If I hit you in the head, it will help you forget, then turn the if-clause into an offer and keep 'will' where it already is, only under a condition. I would need a condition because it is not certain that what I'm offering will have that result. Would this work?

A couple of additional questions, if I may.

1) Does this work only with 'offers'? Does this only work with sentences that have an ironic intent?

2) What would be the difference between the original sentence and I could hit you in the head, if it could help you forget?

Thank you so much for your help!
H.

CalifJim · Answer

Henry74I considered reading my sentence as a case of 'bargaining', but I thought this applied only to agents; so, in the end, I wasn't sure if this reading was possible.

Right. I said "distantly related", i.e., not an obvious relationship between your sentence and the 'bargaining' case.

Henry74Okay. So, unlike a conditional sentence where the main clause is a consequence of the if-clause, here the consequentiality sort of works in the opposite direction. The if-clause is a possible outcome of what is being offered in the main clause; a benefit resulting from it. (Maybe here is the connection with 'bargaining' that I could not see before).

Yes. Well said.

Henry74Come to think of it, maybe I could also say that I can start from If I hit you in the head, it will help you forget, then turn the if-clause into an offer and keep 'will' where it already is, only under a condition. I would need a condition because it is not certain that what I'm offering will have that result. Would this work?

I can't think ahead that far. It sounds complicated. Try it out and post your results and we can take a look and see if it works.

Henry741) Does this work only with 'offers'? Does this only work with sentences that have an ironic intent?

I don't know. I don't see these kinds of sentences often enough to have developed a general theory about them that covers all cases and their subtypes. Much of the explanation of these unusual cases is ad hoc.

Henry742) What would be the difference between the original sentence and I could hit you in the head, if it could help you forget?

Well, the most obvious difference is that this one sounds very unidiomatic to me. It's the if-clause that is jarring here. The condition of having the potential to help (could) is very weak compared to the condition of certainly helping (would).

CJ

Henry74 · Answer

CalifJimIt sounds complicated. Try it out and post your results and we can take a look and see if it works.

Yes, that was a little convoluted.
I was trying to derive my original sentence form another one with related meaning by means of a few transformations.
I think I'll just stick to my first explanation.

CalifJimthe most obvious difference is that this one sounds very unidiomatic to me. It's the if-clause that is jarring here. The condition of having the potential to help (could) is very weak compared to the condition of certainly helping (would).

Understood.

Thank you!
H.

Dimsumexpress · Answer

Actually CJ and A-star already explained, I just wanted to toss my two cents for whatever it is worth.
This " If X would....X could... " construction is quite common in English. Many song writers have used this construction to depict their lyrical expressions in their music, such as Simon and Garfunkel's El Condor Pasa.
I would consider this a conditional construction, an expression of likelihood of something becoming reality if you will.

I'd rather be a sparrow than a snail.
Yes I would.
If I could,
I surely would.

I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.
Yes I would.
If I only could,
I surely would.........

CalifJim · Answer

dimsumexpressThis " If X would....X could... " construction is quite common in English.

I think you meant it the other way around. If X could, X would. At least, all your examples go that way.

CJ

Dimsumexpress · Answer

Thanks Jim for catching it. <img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/10.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/10.gif' alt='Emotion: embarrassed'/>I need to slow down my fingers or speed up my brain, or get them in sync. You are right!

Again on 'Would' - part 2

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions