0
MrPedantic Posted 21 years ago
Linguistics Studies
Treacherous IF
Here's an IF statement:
1. If John is there already, we should go.
At first glance, it seems like a simple 'type 1 conditional'. Here's a possible context:
"John said he'd meet us at the station by 5 o'clock."
"Hmm. It's half past four now. Why not call him and see if he's arrived?"
"Okay, I'll call him now."
"If he's there already, we should go. But if he's still on his way, we may as well finish this bottle of wine first."
Now here's another IF statement:
2. If John is there already, we should go.
It still seems like a simple 'type 1 conditional'. But take this context:
"John said he'd meet us at the station by 5 o'clock."
"Hmm. It's half past four now. Why not call him and see if he's arrived?"
"Okay, I'll call him now."
{phone call}
"Okay, I've called John. He says he arrived a few minutes ago. He's waiting for us by the ticket office."
"A few minutes ago? If he's there already, we should go. Where are my car keys..."
_____________________________________________________
As the dialogue shows, #2 has a different meaning. There's nothing hypothetical about John's location. 'If' here means 'given that'; or, almost, 'since'.
To my mind, #2 isn't a true conditional statement. But how is an ESL student to distinguish between #1, where 'the rules apply', and #2, where they don't?
Must we say, you should always consider the logic of an IF statement, before you treat it as a conditional?
I'd be interested in any comments.
MrP
1. If John is there already, we should go.
At first glance, it seems like a simple 'type 1 conditional'. Here's a possible context:
"John said he'd meet us at the station by 5 o'clock."
"Hmm. It's half past four now. Why not call him and see if he's arrived?"
"Okay, I'll call him now."
"If he's there already, we should go. But if he's still on his way, we may as well finish this bottle of wine first."
Now here's another IF statement:
2. If John is there already, we should go.
It still seems like a simple 'type 1 conditional'. But take this context:
"John said he'd meet us at the station by 5 o'clock."
"Hmm. It's half past four now. Why not call him and see if he's arrived?"
"Okay, I'll call him now."
{phone call}
"Okay, I've called John. He says he arrived a few minutes ago. He's waiting for us by the ticket office."
"A few minutes ago? If he's there already, we should go. Where are my car keys..."
_____________________________________________________
As the dialogue shows, #2 has a different meaning. There's nothing hypothetical about John's location. 'If' here means 'given that'; or, almost, 'since'.
To my mind, #2 isn't a true conditional statement. But how is an ESL student to distinguish between #1, where 'the rules apply', and #2, where they don't?
Must we say, you should always consider the logic of an IF statement, before you treat it as a conditional?
I'd be interested in any comments.
MrP
Top answer
It occurred to me that 'the possibility of negation' might be a test. For instance, in situation #1 above, we can say: 3. If John is there already, we should go.
- It occurred to me that 'the possibility of negation' might be a test.
- For instance, in situation #1 above, we can say: 3.
- If John is there already, we should go.
- If he isn't, we should stay here.
- It isn't possible to say this in situation #2, because we know John's location.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
22 Answers
0
It occurred to me that 'the possibility of negation' might be a test. For instance, in situation #1 above, we can say:
3. If John is there already, we should go. If he isn't, we should stay here.
It isn't possible to say this in situation #2, because we know John's location.
However, 'negatibility' doesn't help with this kind of IF statement:
4. If I'm
3. If John is there already, we should go. If he isn't, we should stay here.
It isn't possible to say this in situation #2, because we know John's location.
However, 'negatibility' doesn't help with this kind of IF statement:
4. If I'm
00
MrP,
I'm a bit uneasy calling an IF-clause a non-condition, since IF is the prototypical way of showing that a condition exists. I do know (I think exactly, in fact) what you mean, but the division into conditional IF and non-conditional IF introduces some awkward terminology. My two cents!
Do we mean the difference between if that truly means if a
I'm a bit uneasy calling an IF-clause a non-condition, since IF is the prototypical way of showing that a condition exists. I do know (I think exactly, in fact) what you mean, but the division into conditional IF and non-conditional IF introduces some awkward terminology. My two cents!
Do we mean the difference between if that truly means if a
00
Hello Jim
CalifJimDo we mean the difference between if that truly means if and if that means since or given that?
Hypothetical if and indicative if, respectively?
That's a useful distinction. Moreover, #1 above could (a little stiffly) take a present subjunctive in the IF clause ('if he be there already'); and th
00
Hello MrPedantic, CalifJim!
Modality & conditional are not my favorite subjects, but I hope I wouldn't bother your discussion if I add here a few words. (I beg your pardon in advance: I will ignore here completely the problem of subjunctive or other matters, peculiar to English Grammar.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modus ponens
Modality & conditional are not my favorite subjects, but I hope I wouldn't bother your discussion if I add here a few words. (I beg your pardon in advance: I will ignore here completely the problem of subjunctive or other matters, peculiar to English Grammar.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modus ponens
00
Hello Roro!
That's very interesting. In that case, I wonder whether we can subdivide 'If P, then Q':
1a. If P, next Q.
1b. If P, necessarily Q.
(This seems at first glance to be the 'type 0' conditional, where 'if' means 'when' or 'where'.)
Is there also an inverted version?
-1a. Even if P, Q.
It seems to me that the 'if' in each of th
That's very interesting. In that case, I wonder whether we can subdivide 'If P, then Q':
1a. If P, next Q.
1b. If P, necessarily Q.
(This seems at first glance to be the 'type 0' conditional, where 'if' means 'when' or 'where'.)
Is there also an inverted version?
-1a. Even if P, Q.
It seems to me that the 'if' in each of th
00
Hello MrPedantic :)
Very sad to say, I cannot think over your points now (if I do so I'll forget my assignment, I'm afraid).
Just a word ... in your examples (including the ones up above), it seems to me, Ps have verious status, that is, probability. (Qs, too...? Perhaps..)
If we have some tool to treat this [probability], then something would be more explicit, maybe.
Very sad to say, I cannot think over your points now (if I do so I'll forget my assignment, I'm afraid).
Just a word ... in your examples (including the ones up above), it seems to me, Ps have verious status, that is, probability. (Qs, too...? Perhaps..)
If we have some tool to treat this [probability], then something would be more explicit, maybe.
00
Roro...If we have some tool to treat this [probability], then something would be more explicit, maybe...I agree. I originally thought that it would be possible to devise something along the lines of a dichotomous key for IF statements, but now I'm not sure that's feasible. But can we use the hypothetical/indicative distinction, to make things more explicit? T
00
CJ's comments on another thread made me wonder whether we could call 'even if' a counter-conditional:
1. If you like opera, you'll like John Adams.
X entails Y
2. Even if you like opera, you'll like John Adams.
X doesn't preclude Y
3. Even if you don't like opera, you'll like John Adams.
X doesn't preclude Y
4. Even if you like opera,
1. If you like opera, you'll like John Adams.
X entails Y
2. Even if you like opera, you'll like John Adams.
X doesn't preclude Y
3. Even if you don't like opera, you'll like John Adams.
X doesn't preclude Y
4. Even if you like opera,
00
I had been thinking about those sentences for some time but I found myself incompetent. First of all I'm not sure about the distinction between [X entails Y] and [X implies Y].
Modus Ponens is quite simple.
+---------+
If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.
+---------+
Maybe [Q is a deduction from P] and [P is an abduction from Q]...?
I have in mind
Modus Ponens is quite simple.
+---------+
If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.
+---------+
Maybe [Q is a deduction from P] and [P is an abduction from Q]...?
I have in mind
00
Quote: [CJ] The "even" seems to take away the conditionality of "if".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I agree.
I've found that in traditional predicate logic such a sentence as [Although P, Q] is expressed:
P?Q
(... I'm not so convinced, though ...)
Have a nice day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I agree.
I've found that in traditional predicate logic such a sentence as [Although P, Q] is expressed:
P?Q
(... I'm not so convinced, though ...)
Have a nice day.
0
Related Questions