If you were looking

Question

Hi eveyone,could you please help me with the two sentences below?a) If you were looking for your keys, you would probably like to know that they are on the fridge.b) If you were looking for your keys, they are on the fridge.It seems to me that both sentences could be correct.In the first one, if you were reads as a subjunctive. This turns the sentence into a real conditional, thus would.In the second one, if you were reads as near past, thus the simple present.Is this correct?Thank you.H.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

Henry74It seems to me that both sentences could be correct.

Yes.

Henry74In the first one, if you were reads as a subjunctive. This turns the sentence into a real conditional, thus would.

Errrr.

The would is in the idiom would like, which is the use of would to attenuate the force of the statement. I take it as equivalent to a present tense in spite of the form. It's grammatically as if the sentence read ... you probably want to know ....

Henry74In the second one, if you were reads as near past, thus the simple present.

Yes. And I would apply the same reasoning to the first one.

Moreover, both instances of "you were looking" can easily be interpreted as the past of politeness, the real meaning being "you are looking".

CJ

Henry74 · Answer

Thank you Jim.

So, just to clarify (because it seems that my initial reasoning was in fact incorrect), when you say:

CalifJimThe would is in the idiom would like, which is the use of would to attenuate the force of the statement. I take it as equivalent to a present tense in spite of the form. It's grammatically as if the sentence read ... you probably want to know ....

do I have to conclude that a sentence that didn't feature an idiomatic would like would be incorrect? For example:
a) if you were looking for your keys, you would find them on the fridge.

Or that, in light of your further comment:

CalifJimMoreover, both instances of "you were looking" can easily be interpreted as the past of politeness, the real meaning being "you are looking".

the occurence of would could also be interpreted as one of politeness?
In other words, can if you were looking only be readable as near past or past of politeness, or can it also be read as the beginning of a condinional sentence, requiring a would-clause?

Thank you.
H.

CalifJim · Answer

Henry74do I have to conclude that a sentence that didn't feature an idiomatic would like would be incorrect? For example:a) if you were looking for your keys, you would find them on the fridge.

You might hear any of the following.
(My remarks apply equally if will replaces 'll, and/or would replaces 'd, and/or you're replaces you are.)

1 If you are looking for your keys, you'll find them on the fridge.
2 If you were looking for your keys, you'll find them on the fridge.
3 If you are looking for your keys, you'd find them on the fridge.
4 If you were looking for your keys, you'd find them on the fridge.

1. No problem. A 'real' situation; a 'real' offer of help.
2. Same meaning as 1. Past of politeness in the if-clause.
3. Problematic. The if-clause is 'real', the following clause is 'hypothetical'. I don't recommend using this one.
4. Standard formula for a 'second conditional', but unlikely to be interpreted as such. It's more like the past of 1. Or - like the more tentative (polite) form of 1.
______________

You have (perhaps inadvertently) stumbled across an example that does not have the properties of a true, typical conditional pattern. Your looking for the keys is not a condition that has to be satisfied for your finding them on the fridge to obtain. Or even if it is, it's not what the sentence seems to be expressing. This is easily seen in two ways. First, you can paraphrase the whole sentence without an "if":

Since you seem to be looking for your keys, let me help you by saying that they are on the fridge.

Second, you can compare this sentence with another true, typical case:

If you lost the keys, you would not be able to open the door.

Here the situation in the if-clause actually brings about the situation in the following clause. Not being able to open the door is the result of having lost the keys. This is unlike the previous case, where the location of the keys is the same ('on the fridge') whether anybody is looking for them or not. The location of the keys is not the result of looking for them.
_______________

If this discussion does not, by implication, answer the rest of your questions, then please post again with any further questions.

CJ

Henry74 · Answer

CalifJimIf this discussion does not, by implication, answer the rest of your questions, then please post again with any further questions

Thank you Jim, your explanation was very clear. Still, I think I'll take you up on your kind offer because this does seem like a very interesting case; one that perhaps made me understand a subtlety that I think had escaped me so far.
I don't know if I have a real question, though. I'll try to explain everything back to you; see if it makes sense.

It all seems to hinge on wether the situation in the main clause is brought about by the condition in the if-clause.
In all the sentences above it does not.
The location of the keys is not dependent upon wether or not someone is looking for them (although it should be noted that the verb in the main clause is find not be. I'll comment on this below).
If I replaced find with a verb that would be logically implied by the fulfillement of the condition ("logically" in the sense of what people would be normally expected to do, given the context), then the sentence would become a conditional one.
For example,

a) If you were looking for your keys, you would at least try on the fridge

Or perhaps better,

b) If you were looking for your keys, you wouldn't waste your time in the kitchen. I already told you they are not here.

In this respect the verb find, in connection with look for, seems to have a foot in either construction. Isn't the following a conditional sentence?:
c) If you were (actually) looking for your keys, you would find them eventually.

If this is correct, everything seems to be holding together; because the tense correlation would be the same in Italian too (only, we would use the subjunctive for the conditional sentence, and the 'imperfetto' for the near past sentence).

The other day there was a post with a sentence that had the same quasi-conditional construction, with a verb different than were. I was stumped by the realization that the tense in the if-clause had a near past meaning, and only now I understand that that wasn't a real conditional sentence. I'll post it for you if I can find it.

Thank you so much!
H.

CalifJim · Answer

Henry74a) If you were looking for your keys, you would at least try (to find them) on the fridge.

I agree that this has a "true (second) conditional" reading. But it also has a "past habit - impersonal you" reading "[If / Whenever] a person was looking for his keys, he [would / used to] ...".

True conditionals that are called 'unreal conditionals' have the feel of armchair philosophy. "If I had a million dollars, ..." "If we traveled regularly to Mars, ..." "If a cure for cancer were found, ..." "If people never made mistakes, ..."

Henry74b) If you were looking for your keys, you wouldn't waste your time in the kitchen. I already told you they are not here.

Hmm. That last sentence spoils the "armchair philosophy" aspect of the previous sentence. By saying that you already told someone about the location of the keys, you make it a real situation. In most cases like this the speaker would choose the present, probably with an imperative as well. If you're looking for your keys, [you won't / don't] waste your time in the kitchen. I already told you they are not here. More truly hypothetical is:

If he [looked for his keys / were to look for his keys], he wouldn't find them in the kitchen because I put them in the bedroom, though he doesn't know that.

Henry74Isn't the following a conditional sentence?:
c) If you were (actually) looking for your keys, you would find them eventually.

Yes. It's a conditional sentence. I believe you're trying to signal something by writing (actually), but I don't know what it is. actually just means really to me, and I don't see that that changes anything significant about the sentence.

Henry74a post with a sentence that had ...
I'll post it for you if I can find it.

OK.

CJ

If you were looking

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions