real or unreal

Question

Hi,If you have an if-clause like the one below, does it have to be unreal and not real or some-extent doubtful?I used/wrote this sentence to ask a question:If the preposition was in the middle of the sentence, 'whom' seemed to be needed.  I used this sentence as sort of the reverse of the first conditional. Did I do right?If the preposition is in the middle of the sentence, 'whom' seems to be needed.This wasn't the focus of my inquiry though. I think this is an age-old? question but as I said at the start "If you have an if-clause like the one below, does it have to be unreal and not real or some-extent doubtful?"If the preposition was in the middle of the sentence, 'whom' seemed to be needed.  How about this? Should a person writing a conditional sentence know how probable the 'if'?? factor?? is?If he was in the park, he would be playing tennis. -- Oh, well, on a second thought, it would be hard to make a conditional sentence like this without setting up an unreal context and this should have 'were' instead of 'was'. Can you think of a situation where 'was' would prevail -- while maintaining the similar structure?

Huevos · Accepted Answer

AnonymousIf the preposition was in the middle of the sentence, 'whom' seemed to be needed.

If the preposition were in the middle of the sentence, [the pronoun] 'whom' would seem to be necessary.

AnonymousIf the preposition is in the middle of the sentence, 'whom' seems to be needed.

If the preposition is in the middle of the sentence, [the pronoun] 'whom' would be necessary.
To me using the word "seem" in a "would" clause seems very peculiar. Omiting the word "would" from the "would" clause also seems peculiar.

Anonymous · Answer

Thank you.

You wrote:

If the preposition is in the middle of the sentence, [the pronoun] 'whom' would be necessary.

To me using the word "seem" in a "would" clause seems very peculiar. Omiting the word "would" from the "would" clause also seems peculiar.

To me, having a 'would' in a conditional sentence would stand out as 'wrong'. We only seem to use 'would' in a second conditional and rarely in a first conditional of the case involving mutual reciprocity like here.

If you would give me a pencil, I would give you a pen.
If you happened to give me a pencil, I would give you a pen.

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousCan you think of a situation where 'was' would prevail -- while maintaining the similar structure?

Yes, for example, the "detective situation".
A detective is going over the details of a crime, explaining his reasoning. In this pattern
If A, B.

is equivalent to
A. Therefore B.
Of course this need not literally be a detective. Any situation involving logical deductions would do as well.
If the thief was on the corner of Elm and Vine at 3 o'clock, he was not at the scene of the crime.
If Anita was not at work Tuesday, she was not aware that Henry had threatened to kill Susan that day.
If the stopped sink was full of water, the faucet was leaking.
___

Another case is when if is a substitute for whenever. If A, B is equivalent to Whenever A, B.

If she was sad, she took a nap. If she was in a good mood, she went shopping.

If it was rainy, they [stayed / used to stay] inside all day and play games.
If the patient was showing the symptoms of pneumonia, the doctor [prescribed / used to prescribe] antibiotics.
There may be other categories.
CJ

Huevos · Answer

AnonymousIf you would give me a pencil, I would give you a pen.

I'd be interested in CJ's opinion on that. I was always taught as a child (parrot fashion) never to use "would" in an "if" clause. This would have been corrected to:

If you gave me a pencil, I'd give you a pen.
If you were to give me a pencil, I would give you a pen.

real or unreal

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions