grammar

Question

Hello everyoneCan we use these modal verbs"ought to, have to, had better" with conditional sentences?for exampleIf you feel pain in your teeth, you (ought to, have to, had better) visit the dentist.If they are possible in the above sentence, are they possible to be used in every kind of conditional sentences?another questionIs it OK to use should with second conditional or third conditional?for exampleIf he studied hard, he should pass the exam. If she had time, he should go to the cinema.or it must be used just with first conditional sentence?please answer

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

XSIf you feel pain in your teeth, you (ought to, have to, had better) visit the dentist.

OK.

XSIf they are possible in the above sentence, are they possible to be used in every kind of conditional sentences?

Probably not. Have you tried?

XSIs it OK to use should with second conditional or third conditional?for exampleIf he studied hard, he should pass the exam. If she had time, he should go to the cinema.

Those certainly sound impossible.

XS · Answer

Thanks for your answer Mr Micawber
for example in the following sentences;
If he studies hard, he has to pass the exam.
If he studied hard, he had to pass the exam.
If he has time, he ought to go to the cinema.
If he has time , he had better go to the cinema.
Are these sentences conditional? and are the modals correct that have been used here?
please answer

Mister Micawber · Answer

XSIf he studied hard, he had to pass the exam.

No for that one. The others are OK.

XS · Answer

Thanks dear
please the final question
If you felt pain in your teeth, you had to go to the dentist.
Is it OK to use ought to, have to, had better with past conditional or with second conditional sentences, like the above sentence?
and you said
If he studies hard, he has to pass the exam.
is OK.
Is it conditional or it is just a compound sentence?
please answer

Mister Micawber · Answer

XSThanks dear

Please don't say that in English. Save 'dear' for your wife or husband and children. To an acquaintance or stranger it sounds like you are looking for ***.

XSIf you felt pain in your teeth, you had to go to the dentist.Is it OK to use ought to, have to, had better with past conditional or with second conditional sentences, like the above sentence?

'Had to' is OK because it is the past form of 'have to'; the others are not OK there.

XSIf he studies hard, he has to pass the exam.is OK.Is it conditional or it is just a compound sentence?

It's a Conditional 1.

XS · Answer

Sorry Mr Micawber, I didn't know that "dear" means something bad to strangers, thanks for your advice.

But if you reread the thread you have written to me:

XSIf he studied hard, he had to pass the exam.

No for that one. The others are OK.
the above answer is yours, in the light of this I thought that "had to" cannot be used with second conditional
as in the following sentence, though I have written before but I want to rewrite it:
If he studied hard, he had to pass the exam.
for this sentence you said "not for that one".
please answer and help me to understand

XS · Answer

Mr Micawber
Sorry, you said "should" is not used with second conditional statement, but In the following link that I have pasted, we have the modal verb"should" that has been used with second conditional sentence, example:

If he invited you, you really should go. Correct

here is the link
https://www.google.iq/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CD0QFjAFahUKEwiqhvXew4PGAhUBVywKHW-JAOg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.englishpage.com%2Fconditional%2Fpresentconditional.html&ei=Cld3VarZA4GusQHvkoLADg&usg=AFQjCNFdzFeNgmlMc_oohKRhIHASwDLAog&bvm=bv.95039771,d.bGg

I am sorry for disturbing you, but I want to reach the conclusion
please help me, why has "should" been used with second conditional statement?
please answer

Mister Micawber · Answer

XSIf he invited you, you really should go.

The two clauses are syntactically unrelated in the way that a conditional sentence is. The second clause is an admonition.

Mister Micawber · Answer

XSIf he studied hard, he had to pass the exam.

I don't know where your other sentence is, but this one is semantically anomalous.
If the test was in the past, then it should read:

If he studied hard, he had (would have) to have passed the exam.

If the test is in the future, then it should read:

If he studied hard, he would have to pass the exam.

Fivejedjon · Answer

There are several problem here. One is that some of the modals (could, might, should, and would, for example) can function both as the past-tense forms of other modals (can, may, shall and will), and also as 'more polite’ present-tense equivalents. Another is that if, while generally introducing a conditional idea, can also have a similar (but not exactly identical) meaning to whenever. It is thus not always possible to say whether an if- clause containing a modal or modal equivalent is acceptable or not, without full context.

Here are some of the possibilities. Note that some sentences appear under more than one heading. Context helps with the intended meaning. Note also that this is merely meant to give an idea of some of the possibilities. It is not intended as a definitive list.

Past reality.
1a. [When we were children.] if it was fine, we had to work in the garden. (There was an obligation. We did work.)
2a. [When we were children] if it was fine, we would work in the garden (We did work. This was our custom or We were willing to work.)
3a. [When we were children,] if it was fine, we could/might work in the garden. (We were able/allowed to work or It was possible for us to work. It is not known whether we worked or not.)
4a. [When we were children,] if it was fine, we were supposed to work in the garden. (There was an obligation. It is not known whether we worked or not.)
5a. [When we were children,] if it was fine, we should/ought to work. (Not natural.)

Present/General reality.
1b. If it is fine, we have to work in the garden. (There is an obligation. We do work.)
2b. If it is fine, we will work in the garden (It is our custom/habit to work or We are willing to work.)
3b. If it is fine, we can/may work in the garden. (We are able/allowed to work or It is possible for us to work. It is not known whether we work or not.)
4b. If it is fine, we are supposed to work in the garden. (There is an obligation. It is not known whether we work or not)
5b. If it is fine, we should/ought to work. (There is an obligation or suggestion. It is not known whether we work or not.)
6b. If it is fine, we must work. (There is an obligation. We do work.)

Future certainty.
1c. If it is fine [tomorrow], we (will) have to work in the garden. (There is a present/future obligation. We will work in the event of fine weather.)
2c. If it is fine [tomorrow], we will work in the garden (It is certain that we will work or We are/will be willing to work in the event of fine weather.)
3c. If it is fine [tomorrow], we can/may/will be able/will be allowed work in the garden. (We are/will be able/allowed to work or It is/will be possible for us to work in the event of fine weather. It is not known whether we will work or not in the event of fine weather.)
4c. If it is fine [ tomorrow] , we are supposed to work. (There is an obligation. It is not known whether we will work or not in the event of fine weather.)
4c.1. If it is fine [tomorrow], we will be supposed to work. (Not natural.)
5c. If it is fine [tomorrow] , we should/ought to work. (There is an obligation or suggestion. It is not known whether we will work or not in the event of fine weather.)
6c. If it is fine [tomorrow], we must work. (There is an obligation. We will work in the event of fine weather.)

Past counterfactual (irrealis) possibility
1d. If it had been fine [yesterday], we would have had to work in the garden. (There would have been an obligation. We did not work)
2d. If it had been fine [yesterday], we would have worked in the garden (There would have been potential certainty or willingness to work. We did not work. )
3d. If it had been fine [yesterday], we could/might have worked in the garden. (We would have been able/allowed to work or It would have been possible for us to work. We did not work.)
4d. If it had been fine [yesterday], we would have been supposed to work. (Not natural)
5d. If it had been fine [yesterday], we should/ ought to have worked. (Not natural.)

Present/General real possibility – as for Present/General reality, sentences 1b-6b

General counterfactual possibility
1e. If it were/was fine, we would have to work in the garden. (There would be an obligation. We would work)
2e. If it were/was fine, we would work in the garden (We would be certain/willing to work.)
3e. If it were/was fine, we could/might work in the garden. (We would able/allowed to work or It would be possible for us to work or There is a suggestion that we work. It is not known whether we work or not.)
4e. If it were/was fine, we would be supposed to work. (Not natural.)
5e. If it were/was fine, we should/ ought to work. (Not natural.)

Present counterfactual possibility
1f. If it were/was fine [now], we would have to be working in the garden. (There would be an obligation. We are not working)
2f. If it were fine [now], we would be working in the garden (We would be certain/willing to work. We are not working.)
3f. If it were/was fine [now], we could/might be working in the garden. (We would be able/allowed to work or It would be possible for us to work. We are not working.)
4f. If it were/was fine [now, we would be supposed to be working. (Not natural)
5f. If it were/was fine [now], we should/ ought to be working. (Not natural.)

Future less real possibility – As for Present counterfactual. sentences 1f-2f, using tomorrow in place of now, except that, for 1f-3f, We are not working becomes We may well not work.

grammar

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions