For number two I would say, "If he was such a good doctor he would have diagnosed the illness." (presumably, he didn't diagnose the illness.)
The second example makes no sense to me.
I'd think it should be:
"If he were such a good doctor, he would have diagnosed the illness"
It is a very strange conditional and it only seems to work with 'should'. ;-)
That's me again- I seem to be getting timed out or something tonight. ;-(
Well, I would say that there are contexts where the two options can make sense. However, considered alone, in themselves, they may pose a bit of a dificulty for someone trying to make sense out of them.
It is a strange sentence. The 'should' form always works for me, but the 'would' one depends- sometimes it sounds OK, then at others it doesn't. ;-)
I think the sentence would work better with "were" in the "if" clause.Quote:
Originally Posted by tdol
As it stands, I would accept either modal.
With should, it means that if he is a good doctor (and presumably was then) one can legitimately expect a correct diagnosis from him.
With would, it means that a good doctor would have made a correct diagnosis; since this one did not, he is probably not a good doctor.
What a shock! :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeNewYork
If he is such a good doctor he would have diagnesed the illness, because if he wasn't he may have not known anything about that sort of illness.