Conditionals

[Andriana]

He never says a word unless he's being threatened in someway.

My question here is why the speaker used the form "is being threatened" and not "is threatened". When I should use the first form "is threatened" and not the second "is being threatened"? What's the difference in meaning between them? Is there a certain rule to follow?

If you drive carefully, you will have fewer accidents.

If you drove carefully, you wouldn't have so many accidents.

The first sentence doesn't sound like a warning to me, but rather like advice, I'd say. The second sentence uses the past tense but it is not retrospective because in conditional clauses the simple past tense-when it's used in both clauses; the main and condition clause-usually refers to either the unreal present or the unreal future but never to the past.
To say that the second sentence is retrospective, then it should be:


If you had driven carefully, you wouldn't have had so many accidents.


Which means you didn't drive carefully at some time in the past and as a result you had so many accidents.

I think the speaker in the second sentence "If you drove carefully, you wouldn't have so many accidents" is referring to unreal or imaginary condition in the present (you don't drive carefully so you do have so many accidents, but if you drove carefully, you wouldn't have so many accidents.

The trouble I am having with unreal/hypothetical conditionals is that sometimes I can't tell whether the sentence refers to a present/future real condition or to a present/future unreal condition. Is it a matter of the speaker's choice and his/her degree of certainty about the possibility of a situation-if it is likely or unlikely to happen?

If you help me now, you are a true friend.

If you helped me, you would be a true friend.

The first sentence makes a complete sense to me. It suggests that the speaker is somewhat sure that his/her friend is gonna help. Am I right there? The second sentence, however, indicates that the speaker doubts that his/her friend will lend a hand.



If they didn't show him the way, he will not find the right office.

If they don't show him the way, he will not find the right office.

If they didn't show him the way, he wouldn't find the right office.

The first sentence sounds fine (the guy has already asked for directions, but he will not find the right office unless the people he has asked them for directions have already showed him the way. Is my interpretation correct?

Usually if the condition clause (that contains the "if") is in the simple past tense, the main clause cannot be in the future tense. However, in the first sentence tenses; simple past and future are mixed up. Is this grammatical? Under which conditions can we mix up tenses like in the first sentence?

The second sentence is predictive. The speaker is certain that the guy will not find the office (as long as they don't show him the way, he definitely won't find the right office). Predictive sentences usually refer to the real future (events and situations that are possible and likely to happen). Various forms of the present tense can be used in the condition clause and different forms of the future tense can be used in the main clause. I am right?

The third sentence is also predictive but more hypothetical (less possible and unlikely to happen). The speaker in this sentence is less certain whether the guy may find the right office (I don't think he is likely to find the office). My question here is about the tense reference. Is the speaker referring to the unreal present or to the unreal future? Again, how can I tell?


If it rains tomorrow, be sure to close the windows.

If it should rain tomorrow, be sure to close the windows.

If it is raining tomorrow, be sure to close the windows.

The first and the third sentences sound perfectly correct to me. Both suggest the possibility of raining tomorrow. The third, however, implies that it is less likely to rain tomorrow but if it happens to rain, then be sure to close the windows. The use of "should" implies that something is probable, 85% likely to happen. "rains" and "is raining" suggest a higher possibility of raining, 95-100% likely to happen. Am I right?

Is the use of "should" above restricted to formal context? Is it likely to occur in everyday conversational conditionals?





If the truth is known, public opinion will change.

If the truth were known, public opinion would change.

The speaker in the first sentence is somewhat sure that if the truth is revealed, then public opinion will change whereasthe speaker in the second sentence sounds less certain (if the truth were to be known-which I don't think would happen, then public opinion would probably change).

My question is again about the tense reference. Do both sentences 1&2 refer to the present unreal or to the future unreal? How can I tell if a predictive or hypothetical statement refers to the real/unreal present or future? Any specific grammatical rules?

[Pete]

Andriana asks:
He never says a word unless he's being threatened in someway.

My question here is why the speaker used the form "is being threatened" and not "is threatened". When I should use the first form "is threatened" and not the second "is being threatened"? What's the difference in meaning between them? Is there a certain rule to follow?
-- The present continuous (progressive) emphasizes that the threatening is a specific (probably temporary) act that is happening at the exact time that he speaks. If you used the simple present passive, you would appear to be referring to a more general sort of threat.

If you drive carefully, you will have fewer accidents.

If you drove carefully, you wouldn't have so many accidents.

The first sentence doesn't sound like a warning to me, but rather like advice, I'd say. The second sentence uses the past tense but it is not retrospective because in conditional clauses the simple past tense-when it's used in both clauses; the main and condition clause-usually refers to either the unreal present or the unreal future but never to the past.
To say that the second sentence is retrospective, then it should be:


If you had driven carefully, you wouldn't have had so many accidents.

-- I agree with your analysis.

[LEFT]Which means you didn't drive carefully at some time in the past and as a result you had so many accidents.

I think the speaker in the second sentence "If you drove carefully, you wouldn't have so many accidents" is referring to unreal or imaginary condition in the present (you don't drive carefully so you do have so many accidents, but if you drove carefully, you wouldn't have so many accidents.

-- I agree with this analysis as well.

The trouble I am having with unreal/hypothetical conditionals is that sometimes I can't tell whether the sentence refers to a present/future real condition or to a present/future unreal condition. Is it a matter of the speaker's choice and his/her degree of certainty about the possibility of a situation-if it is likely or unlikely to happen?

Yes, the form used depends on whether the speaker thinks the condition is likely or unlikely. For future events, there is almost never complete certainty.

If you help me now, you are a true friend.

If you helped me, you would be a true friend.

The first sentence makes a complete sense to me. It suggests that the speaker is somewhat sure that his/her friend is gonna help. Am I right there?

-- Yes, though I don't like the combination "somewhat sure". I'd rather say, "the speaker thinks it likely that his/her friend is going to help."

The second sentence, however, indicates that the speaker doubts that his/her friend will lend a hand. -- Right.


If they didn't show him the way, he will not find the right office.

If they don't show him the way, he will not find the right office.

If they didn't show him the way, he wouldn't find the right office.

The first sentence sounds fine (the guy has already asked for directions, but he will not find the right office unless the people he has asked them for directions have already showed him the way. Is my interpretation correct? -- Yes.

Usually if the condition clause (that contains the "if") is in the simple past tense, the main clause cannot be in the future tense. However, in the first sentence tenses; simple past and future are mixed up. Is this grammatical? Under which conditions can we mix up tenses like in the first sentence?

-- Yes, it is fine. You can mix up tenses like this when the situation requires it; here a future result depends on the outcome of a happening in the past. The speaker doesn't know what happened in the past, but he/she has no more reason to doubt it than to presume it happened, so you treat the past happening as a "real, past event", and the conclusion is a future prediction.

The second sentence is predictive. The speaker is certain that the guy will not find the office (as long as they don't show him the way, he definitely won't find the right office). Predictive sentences usually refer to the real future (events and situations that are possible and likely to happen). Various forms of the present tense can be used in the condition clause and different forms of the future tense can be used in the main clause. I am right? -- Yes.

The third sentence is also predictive but more hypothetical (less possible and unlikely to happen). The speaker in this sentence is less certain whether the guy may find the right office (I don't think he is likely to find the office). My question here is about the tense reference. Is the speaker referring to the unreal present or to the unreal future? Again, how can I tell?

-- I'd say that you are not speaking about an action taking place at the exact moment of speech (for that, you would say, "If they weren't showing him the way … ") but the sentence as it is could refer to any time from the present on up to some indefinite future. Presumably context will let you know what sort of time frame the speaker has in mind.

If it rains tomorrow, be sure to close the windows.

If it should rain tomorrow, be sure to close the windows.

If it is raining tomorrow, be sure to close the windows.

The first and the third sentences sound perfectly correct to me. Both suggest the possibility of raining tomorrow. The third, however, implies that it is less likely to rain tomorrow but if it happens to rain, then be sure to close the windows. The use of "should" implies that something is probable, 85% likely to happen. "rains" and "is raining" suggest a higher possibility of raining, 95-100% likely to happen. Am I right?

-- I don't think that the difference between 1 and 3 is a difference of suggested likelihood. Rather, the continuous (progressive) one, "if it is raining", suggests the action to take at the specific time when the rain occurs; "if it rains" puts the emphasis on the fact that at some time it may rain, and what to do about it. You expect the same response in either case; it is the emphasis that is different.

Now about probabilities: I doubt that you would get any sort of universal agreement, but I'd use #2 only when I thought it was somewhat unlikely that it would rain, maybe 40% probability or less. I'd probably use 1 or 3 when I thought the probability was greater than that, maybe 50% or more. (These guesses are vague enough that I don't really have to worry about "well, what do you say if the probability is 43%?")

Is the use of "should" above restricted to formal context? Is it likely to occur in everyday conversational conditionals?
-- It does have a sort of formal ring to it, but there's nothing wrong with using it in conversation if it expresses what you want to say.
The total reply was too long for the system. I'll continue it below. - P

[Pete]

Reply to Adriana's long question about conditionals, continued:

If the truth is known, public opinion will change.

If the truth were known, public opinion would change.

The speaker in the first sentence is somewhat sure that if the truth is revealed, then public opinion will change whereasthe speaker in the second sentence sounds less certain (if the truth were to be known-which I don't think would happen, then public opinion would probably change).

-- If context lets us think of these as speaking of the future, your analysis is correct. This is what you are calling "future real" and "future unreal" (which I prefer to call hypothetical or future unlikely).

In a different context, we might give present interpretations to the "if" clauses: "If the truth is known" might mean, I haven't been listening to the media so I don't know if the truth is known by the general public yet, but it it is, …" Similarly, "If the truth were known" could be present unreal: we know that the truth is not known, but if it were, …"

My question is again about the tense reference. Do both sentences 1&2 refer to the present unreal or to the future unreal? How can I tell if a predictive or hypothetical statement refers to the real/unreal present or future? Any specific grammatical rules? [/LEFT]

-- I think you have to go by context, an idea of which meaning makes the most sense in the present discourse. The grammatical form, in general, isn't enough to tell. As I commented once before, if a simple past verb is supposed to represent present unreal, I think it must either be a "non-continuous" verb or be able to have a reasonable interpretation as repeated, habitual action. Otherwise I would interpret it as "future hypothetical" (or maybe "past real").