0
Laborious Posted 13 years ago
Grammar
doubt about Conditional
Dear teachers,
The following paragraph has been taken from and my confusion is about the conditional sentence used in this paragraph. Maybe the posters have explained it well but I think I wasn't sharp enough to grasp the actual meaning of that conditional sentence.
Here's the paragraph:
A Bedtime Story by Gilles Pinette
Many moons ago, as Nanabush was ice fishing on the Great Spirit Lake, he caught a very special fish. This fish was clear like the cool water and would not be seen at all if it were not for two golden eyes. And even these eyes were not visible when the fish closed her eyelids.
Do 'would not be seen' and 'if it were not for two golden eyes' express something(which is in this case 'would not be seen and if it were not...") that was habitual?
could it be said like ... "and It (the fish) didn't use to be seen at all when it were not for two golden eyes" with no difference in the meaning of the original sentence?
I'm not being able to understand what the conditional sentence express in the paragraph above. please help me, teachers!
Thank you.
The following paragraph has been taken from and my confusion is about the conditional sentence used in this paragraph. Maybe the posters have explained it well but I think I wasn't sharp enough to grasp the actual meaning of that conditional sentence.
Here's the paragraph:
A Bedtime Story by Gilles Pinette
Many moons ago, as Nanabush was ice fishing on the Great Spirit Lake, he caught a very special fish. This fish was clear like the cool water and would not be seen at all if it were not for two golden eyes. And even these eyes were not visible when the fish closed her eyelids.
Do 'would not be seen' and 'if it were not for two golden eyes' express something(which is in this case 'would not be seen and if it were not...") that was habitual?
could it be said like ... "and It (the fish) didn't use to be seen at all when it were not for two golden eyes" with no difference in the meaning of the original sentence?
I'm not being able to understand what the conditional sentence express in the paragraph above. please help me, teachers!
Thank you.
Top answer
This fish was clear like the cool water and would not be seen at all if it were not for two golden eyes. It means that the fish was not invisible because it had two golden eyes. It was the eyes that made it visible.
- This fish was clear like the cool water and would not be seen at all if it were not for two golden eyes.
- It means that the fish was not invisible because it had two golden eyes.
- It was the eyes that made it visible.
- It is not habitual.
- The golden eyes are a distinguishing feature of this kind of fish.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
4 Answers
0
This fish was clear like the cool water and would not be seen at all if it were not for two golden eyes.
It means that the fish was not invisible because it had two golden eyes. It was the eyes that made it visible.
It is not habitual.
The golden eyes are a distinguishing feature of this kind of fish.
It means that the fish was not invisible because it had two golden eyes. It was the eyes that made it visible.
It is not habitual.
The golden eyes are a distinguishing feature of this kind of fish.
Laboriouscou
00
Thank you so much, ma'am for your kind reply!
But I don't understand why the second conditional (would .... if were ) pattern's been used here? The story is in the past tense and we use the second conditional to talk about either present or future, don't we?
Thanks for your help, though this still remains a doubt in my mind!
But I don't understand why the second conditional (would .... if were ) pattern's been used here? The story is in the past tense and we use the second conditional to talk about either present or future, don't we?
Thanks for your help, though this still remains a doubt in my mind!
00
It is a perfectly regular conditional.
There are three things that might confuse you: 1) the use of the "dummy it" in the if-clause, 2) passive voice in the main clause and 3) the unusual order of the two clauses.
The fish would not be seen at all if it (dummy it) were not for two golden eyes.
Reversing the order, and changing to active voice:
If it
There are three things that might confuse you: 1) the use of the "dummy it" in the if-clause, 2) passive voice in the main clause and 3) the unusual order of the two clauses.
The fish would not be seen at all if it (dummy it) were not for two golden eyes.
Reversing the order, and changing to active voice:
If it
00
Thank you again!
And yes, you are right. Probably, I was more in doubt because of the "If it were..." part.
really appreciate you help!
Laborious
And yes, you are right. Probably, I was more in doubt because of the "If it were..." part.
really appreciate you help!
Laborious
0
Related Questions