Can you say this sentence like this?

alc24- If it's to yell at me that you came here, you can leave.

It's grammatical, and it's fine by me - perhaps a little upper register, or literary.
Let's say it's not modern casual.
Sounds like a line from an old play.

It would be more natural to say:-

If you (only) came here to yell at me, you can leave.

Possibilities:

If yelling at me is the only reason you came here, you can leave.
If you've come to yell at me, you can leave.
If the only reason you came is to yell at me, you can leave

The more natural way to say it in everyday speech would be:

If you came here to yell at me, then you can leave.

or, If your reason for coming here is to yell at me, then you can leave.

Thank you everyone,

THe same structure here, could you tell me what you think?

The person can smoke because he's on crutches:

1 If it's to smoke that you want me to hold your crutches, than you can forget about it.

2 If you want me to hold yo

If you want me to hold your crutches so that you can smoke, you can forget about it.

That's how I would say it and that is what sounds most natural.

Both of your sentences above are correct, except the "cause" should technically be "because." Although, in casual speech, people do say, "cause" for "because."

Hello Avangi and Louise,

I had one question regarding the structure "if it is to"

Are these both correct and send in english? How would you say it?

Why send me to do your dirty work if it's to dissuade me from going through with it at the last minute. Were you trying to teach me a lesson.

Why send me to do your dirty work just to dissuade me from going through

I don't know if these are rhetorical questions or if they require question marks. (Please capitalize "English.")
What do you mean, "and send in English"?

The sentences seem okay grammatically.

In the first one, I'd say, "if it's only to disuade etc."
That would make the meaning the same as in the second one.

The final "it" 's in both sentences need antec