Conditional

Question

Hi,“This finding was in some ways quite unexpected,” Dr. Witt says. It might seem obvious that a bigger-seeming target would invite success. But the reverse easily could be true, she says. A wider-seeming target could prompt wider shots. Reality would have betrayed you in that case, and you’d miss.Q1) "in that case" refers to the situation where a wider-seeming target induced you to hit it wide, correct?Q2) As far as I know, "would have ..." is used in either a past or a future counterfactual situation, with the former being the case in the above example. Correct?ex) If he had been rich, he would have been happy.(The reality is that he wasn't rich at some past time)Q3) How would you have written the if-clause?  What would be an implicit conditional for the sentence in bold?Thank you.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

jooneyQ1) "in that case" refers to the situation where a wider-seeming target induced you to hit it wide, correct?

Yes.

jooneyQ2) As far as I know, "would have ..." is used in either a past or a future counterfactual situation, with the former being the case in the above example. Correct?

It's hard to say, but I accept your analysis as plausible.

jooneyQ3) How would you have written the if-clause? What would be an implicit conditional for the sentence in bold?

"in that case" takes the place of an if-clause.

Reality would have betrayed you if that had been the case.

CJ

Jooney · Answer

Thank you for the reply, CJ.

It's hard to say,...

Q1) Could you please explain what you meant by this?

"in that case" takes the place of an if-clause.

Reality would have betrayed you if that had been the case.

The statement made in the if-clause is counterfactual, meaning that the event of making you hit it wide was contrary to reality. But that doesn't seem to conform to the preceding sentence, which said, "A wider-seeming target could prompt wider shots."

Q2) What am I missing here?

Q3) Also, could you explain the use of "would" in "you'd miss"? It seems like a hypothetical situation involved here, but I can't really pinpoint the implied antecedent. Please help.

CalifJim · Answer

jooneyIt's hard to say,...Q1) Could you please explain what you meant by this?

It's hard to say ... = It is difficult to answer the question, or even to know if it has a definitive answer.
= I don't know the answer.

jooney"in that case" takes the place of an if-clause.Reality would have betrayed you if that had been the case.The statement made in the if-clause is counterfactual, meaning that the event of making you hit it wide was contrary to reality. But that doesn't seem to conform to the preceding sentence, which said, "A wider-seeming target could prompt wider shots." Q2) What am I missing here?

The text uses some twists and turns of viewpoint that are hard to follow, which is why I too am having trouble making sense of it. It seems to me that it should have been one of these, and not a mix of both:

Reality would betray you, and you would miss ...
Reality would have betrayed you, and you would have missed ...

Perhaps the author's idea was to put us readers in a position (in time) between the betrayal and the missing. Thus, the viewpoint he's trying to establish is at the point when the betrayal has already occurred, but the missing is yet to occur.

Or maybe the author just wrote it wrong and now wishes he could rewrite it correctly.

jooneyQ3) Also, could you explain the use of "would" in "you'd miss"? It seems like a hypothetical situation involved here, but I can't really pinpoint the implied antecedent. Please help.

You would miss the (wider-seeming) target. = You would not hit the target.

CJ

Jooney · Answer

Thank you for your answer, CJ.

What I have trouble understanding is the implicit conditional that might have been there.

Reality would have betrayed you if that had been the case.

=Reality would have betrayed you if a wider-seeming target had induced you to hit wider shots.

The if-clause posits a contrary-to-fact situation. That is, the supposition made in the if-clause is known to be false. So,what we know to be true is as follows:

A wider-seeming target didn't/couldn't induce you to hit wider shots.

But that's doesn't conform to the doctor's earlier statement, which said, "A wider-seeming target could prompt wider shots."

To me, it's like saying he quit smoking in a "real world" in the following example.

He wouldn't have died if he had quit smoking 10 years ago.(fact: he didn't quit smoking)

CalifJim · Answer

You are on the right track, but I think the meaning is a little different, and it may be more tricky than you think.

It might seem obvious that a bigger-seeming target would invite success. But the reverse easily could be true, she says. A wider-seeming target could prompt wider shots. Reality would have betrayed you in that case, and you’d miss.

Reality would have betrayed you. = You would have succumbed to a deceptive idea.

If you had believed the statement "Bigger targets invite success" (and had made 'wider shots' as the result of that belief), you would have succumbed to the deception in that statement.

The true statement that corresponds to the counterfactual here is "You did not believe that statement". Let's suppose that the writer wasn't just making a grammatical mistake here. Assuming that, we can think of this as a tricky stylistic device which plays with 'point of view'. It posits a fictitious world in which the reader has, fortunately, not been deceived in the way described (in fictitious attempts which have already been made to hit the target), as if to say, "Now, dear reader, of course you did not believe that nonsense because you were smart enough to know that if you had believed it, you would have been deceived."

Unfortunately, this does not square well with that little 'button' tacked on the end, and you'd miss. Wrong tense. We expect and you would have missed. Suddenly, the point of view changes to this:

If you believed that nonsense (if you were deceived in this way), you would miss, i.e., you would fail to hit your target.

So with those last few words, the writer brings us out of the fictitious world where his intelligent reader has cleverly avoided being deceived, and brings us back to the world of advising the reader 'in real time'.
____________

Be aware that much of this is speculation based on the assumption that the writer actually intended to write the passage as he did. Keep in mind that it is still possible that the writer made a mistake.

The writer could have saved us all this grammatical agonizing had he simply kept the viewpoint the same throughout, writing either Reality would betray you and you'd miss or Reality would have betrayed you and you'd have missed.
To whom should we direct our letters of complaint?

CJ

Jooney · Answer

Your explanation made me see the whole picture perfectly clearly.<img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' alt='Emotion: smile'/>  Thank you very much!

Blueblooded65 · Answer

Do we have conditional with -ing?
For example for the following sentence which one is right?

1. People aren't looking for the treasure anymore because she it's already been discovered.
If it hadn't yet been discovered, people would have looked/looking for it.

How about this sentence?
2. Marcia isn't working for Hunter Corporation because she moved out of the country.
- If she hadn't moved out of the country, she would have been working/worked for Hunter Corporation.

If the -ing form is right, then what kind of conditional is it?

Conditional

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions