Quote:
|
Originally Posted by X Mode What's an "extended zero conditional"? Why did you choose to use the term "extended zero conditional"?
...
If Joe's late, he's stuck in traffic. - That is a zero conditional. It can be seen as what the speaker always concludes when Joe is late. To the speaker, that is the truth. While this can be thought of as what the speaker always concludes about Joe when he's late, it's possible that this sentence might apply to one specific circumstance as well. In this way, we might choose to not see it as a zero conditional. However, if form serves as a definition, then it is a zero conditional. |
Maybe 'reverse zero conditional' would have been a better term.
Let me explain.
In the zero conditional, we have this structure:
1. If P, next Q.
e.g. (to use a popular example) "If you heat water to 100C, it boils."
We may rephrase this as:
1a. When P, next Q.
e.g. "When you heat water to 100C, it boils."
Your sentence is:
2. If Joe's late, he's stuck in traffic.
We may rephrase this as:
2a. When Joe's late, he's stuck in traffic.
We've established that this also means:
2b. When Joe's late, it's because he's stuck in traffic.
But if we look at our zero conditional example, we find that inserting 'it's because' doesn't work:
3. When you heat water to 100C, it's because it boils.
Instead, we have to say:
3a. When water boils, it's because you've heated it to 100C.
In other words, the sequence of events in #3 is wrong.
From this we can establish that where we can sensibly insert 'it's because' into an IF statement, the structure is not 'If P, next Q', but:
4. If Q, it's because P.
Your original example confirms this:
a) If P, next Q => If Q, it's because P.
b) When Joe's stuck in traffic, he's late => When Joe's late, it's because he's stuck in traffic.
I haven't ever seen the zero conditional defined in a way that would include the structure of #4, however; so I would call your example a 'reversed zero conditional'.
MrP
Edit: I should add that 'If Q, it's because P' embodies the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, except where 'if' means 'if and only if'. You've confirmed that this is your speaker's interpretation of his sentence.