Special Conditionals

Question

[url="http://clarkhoward.com/library/tips/used_car.html"]
[/url]

If these are not correct, why? What do they mean?

Orinal Sentence:
1. If they stop making cars now, it would take 60 days to sell everything they have. (What kind of structure is this? How come the tenses don't match and it is correct? How do you know if this sentence is not a mistake? I can't figure this out.:cry: )

2. If they stop making cars now, it will take 60 days to sell everything they have. (How come it is not like this? )
Or like this:
3. If they stopped making cars now, it would take 60 days to sell everything they have.

4. If he kills him, he would go to jail. (If this is wrong, why? #1 is correct? #1 didn't follow the rule?)
5. If they stopped making cars now, it will take 60 days to sell everything they have. (If this is wrong, why? #1 is correct and the tense don't match?

For present imaginary conditional, I can use 'now' right? But for past real conditional, I can't right?
6. If they stopped making cars now, it would take 60 days to sell everything they have.

Thanks.

Just the truth · Accepted Answer

See what prescriptive grammar has wrought.

CalifJim · Answer

Jack,
Not everyone follows the "prescriptions"!
stop ... will
stopped (now) ... would
Those are the "prescriptions"!

CJ

Just the truth · Answer

There is a very good reason why native speakers don't follow the prescriptive "sequence of tenses" or "concord of tenses". These rules are simply not accurate reflections of how language works.

Language needs to describe the infinite. If we followed these errant rules, there would be much we couldn't even say, which is truly a preposterous situaion, isn't it?

Here's a summation from one linguist:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens [prescriptivists] make no sense on any level. They are bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since. For as long as they have existed, speakers have flouted them, spawning identical plaints about the imminent decline of the language century after century. All the best writers in English have been among the flagrant flouters. The rules conform neither to logic nor tradition, and if they were ever followed they would force writers into fuzzy, clumsy, wordy, ambiguous, incomprehensible prose, in which certain thoughts are not expressible at all. Indeed, most of the "ignorant errors" these rules are supposed to correct display an elegant logic and an acute sensitivity to the grammatical texture of the language, to which the mavens are oblivious.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jack112 · Answer

Thanks, this is interesting:
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html

Are both of these correct? If not, why? What do they mean?
1. If I remember correctly, I asked ask you about a car last week. (This one looks right to me, but is this a conditional sentence? I notice the tenses don't match?)
2. If I remembered correctly, I asked ask you about a car last week.

Thanks.

Just the truth · Answer

If they stop making cars now, it would take 60 days to sell everything they have.

What kind of structure is this?

JTT: I think this even has a grammatical name; mixed conditional.

How come the tenses don't match and it is correct? How do you know if this sentence is not a mistake? I can't figure this out.

JTT: First, yes, it's perfectly correct, Jack. The tenses do match. A present tense form is used in the first part to show that the speaker sees the possibility of "stopping making cars" as more probable than if the past tense FORM had been used.

Using would have made the conditional fall somwhere on a scale of more improbable to impossible in the speaker's mind. While some situations are clearly counterfactual, requiring a past tense FORM {___ed}, for many situations, the choice for ENLs is more wide open. It isn't an either/or, it's a nuance.

in the second part is a tenseless modal verb. Because modals are tenseless [in modern English] they can operate in any time sequence. And they do, don't they?

Would you like a piece of pie?

I would go, but ... .

He would think that!

That would be nice.

NONE of the above are past tense/time.

Even in this sentence of yours,

... it would take 60 days to sell everything they have. ,

we see that "it would take ..." clearly and unequivocably points to a future. You are confused because you have, in all likelihood, been misled into thinking that is the past tense of . That's absolutely false. Drop this bit of nonsense and this perfectly natural English sentence makes perfect sense.

Believe the old canard and that leaves you trapped in the same conundrum as CalifJim.

Just the truth · Answer

For more examples of confusion that has resulted from this "sequence of tenses" nonsense, see also,

"Conditionals"

http://www.EnglishForward.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=63941

MrPedantic · Answer

JT: Using would have made the conditional fall somwhere on a scale of more improbable to impossible in the speaker's mind.

MrP: I would be interested to hear your description of this distinct nuance.

JTT: Would you like a piece of pie?

MrP: The fact that a word-form is used in one way in one context doesn't mean it can't be used in another way elsewhere.

In this instance, the sentence may relate to an event in the future (the taking of the piece of pie), but the 'would' relates to the past, since the guest's desire (or lack of desire) for a piece of pie is assumed to have existed before the question was asked.

So the question indeed uses 'would' as a past-tense verb: it means 'were you wanting (to take) a piece of pie?'.

JTT: "it would take ..." clearly and unequivocably points to a future.

The construction 'stopped' + 'would' doesn't 'point to the future'. It points nowhere. The condition can either be fulfilled or not fulfilled. But at the moment of making the condition, the outcome doesn't exist. So how can we point to it?

I turn your usual line of argument back on you. One function of past tenses is to express the unreal. That's because we use them to express the unreal in conditional sentences. 'Would' is the star witness in this case: the past tense of 'will'.

General points

JTT: unsupported assertion/personal abuse/blah blah blah.

MrP: First point. Why should we accept your unsupported assertions, rather than our own experiences? This is not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely interested in why you think we should.

MrP: Second point. I'm sure you don't need to let your emotions get the better of you, JT. This is a discussion about linguistics. It's not the invasion of Iraq.

We're no doubt all very interested in your arguments, but I don't quite see why you think personal comments are going to persuade anyone. Explain it to me.

MrP

CalifJim · Answer

Goodness! I'm trapped in a conundrum, and I don't even know it!

None of the "would" + base-form-of-verb patterns are past. They are all conditional.

"would like" is an idiom for "want"; the substitute is often made for politeness.

"I would go" and "That would be nice" are pure (non-idiomatic) conditional, but their corresponding "if" clauses are not explicitly stated.

"He would think that" is another idiomatic formula in one reading (stressed "would" suggesting something like typical behavior) and a pure conditional in another reading (unstressed "would") - again without an explicit "if" clause.

Historically "would" was the past of "will". That's why in modern English the future of the past (or "conditional") is formed with "would" (or "was going to") and the future of the present is formed with "will" (or "is going to").

As much as it would simplify the structure of English to construe all modals as tenseless or to construe them all as tensed in pairs like "can"-"could", "shall"-"should", etc., neither "all-or-nothing" theory works very well. I think we need to allow ourselves the scope to explain some structures in terms of one formulation and others, in another.

Further, it is useful to separate systemic and non-systemic uses of modals. (The idiomatic uses mentioned are what I'd call examples of non-systemic uses.)

Just the truth · Answer

JT: Using would have made the conditional fall somwhere on a scale of more improbable to impossible in the speaker's mind.

MrP: I would be interested to hear your description of this distinct nuance.

JT: allows for a greater possibility; illustrates that the speaker is saying that "the conditional fall somewhere on a scale of more improbable to impossible in the speaker's mind. Both can apply to the same situation. Both point to a future happening; they only signal a stronger or weaker or even an impossible.

The past tense FORM used is only to signal a weaker to an impossible. We know this because we only have one form. Subjunctives express doubt too.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JTT: Would you like a piece of pie?

MrP: The fact that a word-form is used in one way in one context doesn't mean it can't be used in another way elsewhere.

JJT: But the fact that all modals operate in all tense/time situations makes it more than a little silly to call them past and present tense forms. Try producing a sentence where the purported past tense modals operate as past tenses of the purported present tense modals.

Explain why ENLs can use in past tense/time situations.

MP: In this instance, the sentence may relate to an event in the future (the taking of the piece of pie), but the 'would' relates to the past, since the guest's desire (or lack of desire) for a piece of pie is assumed to have existed before the question was asked.

So the question indeed uses 'would' as a past-tense verb: it means 'were you wanting (to take) a piece of pie?'.

JT: Not possible, Mr P. The historical past tense form is only used to express politeness.

Are you suggesting that,

OR

means "the guest's desire (or lack of desire) for a piece of pie is assumed to have existed before the question was asked."

Substituting for the identical situation where could all be used doesn't, all of a sudden, switch the time frame into the past.

Using the past tense forms, historical past tense forms in the case of modals, is done for social distancing, to soften our speech, to make it more polite.

Are you suggesting that,

is any different in time reference to,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JTT: "it would take ..." clearly and unequivocably points to a future.

The construction 'stopped' + 'would' doesn't 'point to the future'. It points nowhere. The condition can either be fulfilled or not fulfilled. But at the moment of making the condition, the outcome doesn't exist. So how can we point to it?

JT: Nowhere, Mr P? It seems, though I may be wrong, that you're operating under the illusion that all subjunctive and other past tense form conditionals refer ONLY to unreal conditions.

Imagine you're planning a holiday and I suggest,

If I were you, I would go to Spain.

Does this not refer to a potential future?

could be pure speculation but it could also be based on facts.

1) If I get up at 5AM tomorrow, it will be dark.

Not a future, points to nothing; I don't think that's possible, Sir.

1) is no different than,

If I got up at 5AM tomorrow, it would be dark.

Both point to tomorrow, a clear future reference, and both allow that there is some possibility for that event to occur.

MP: I turn your usual line of argument back on you. One function of past tenses is to express the unreal. That's because we use them to express the unreal in conditional sentences. 'Would' is the star witness in this case: the past tense of 'will'.

JT: Regarding the modals, that's been the tale told, Mr P, but it's false.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General points

JTT: unsupported assertion/personal abuse/blah blah blah.

MrP: First point. Why should we accept your unsupported assertions, rather than our own experiences? This is not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely interested in why you think we should.

JT: You shouldn't. You should argue them vociferously and defend your own.

MrP: Second point. I'm sure you don't need to let your emotions get the better of you, JT. This is a discussion about linguistics. It's not the invasion of Iraq.

JT: That may happen. If I've offended you, I apologise.

We're no doubt all very interested in your arguments, but I don't quite see why you think personal comments are going to persuade anyone. Explain it to me.

JT: If I dump on prescriptivists, it's because I believe it's warranted. Note well: I'm not alone in this. Teaching ESL is hard enough without having to rectify old and not so old errors. If an argument strikes a personal chord, then it's up to you [or anyone else] to defend that position.

Just the truth · Answer

CJ: "I would go" and "That would be nice" are pure (non-idiomatic) conditional, but their corresponding "if" clauses are not explicitly stated.

JT: "I will go" and "That will be nice" are also pure conditional, but their corresponding "if" clauses are not explicitly stated.

What do you mean by "non-idiomatic", Jim?

CJ: That's why in modern English the future of the past (or "conditional") is formed with "would" (or "was going to") and the future of the present is formed with "will" (or "is going to").

JT: I'm also confused here. Could you offer some examples to clarify your statement, please?

CJ: Further, it is useful to separate systemic and non-systemic uses of modals. (The idiomatic uses mentioned are what I'd call examples of non-systemic uses.)

JT: That's been done, Jim. Modals are deontic or epistemic. The old system, which "construe them all as tensed in pairs like "can"-"could", "shall"-"should", etc" misleads ESLs on a dramatic scale. Why state that something has tense when it doesn't act in that fashion in actual use?

Special Conditionals

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions