Really Mixed Conditionals

[Tdol]

Any comments?

[RonBee]

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.)

[dduck]

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"

Iain

[Anonymous]

It is a very strange conditional and it only seems to work with 'should'.

[Tdol]

That's me again- I seem to be getting timed out or something tonight. ;-(

[aijex ijaz]

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.

[Tdol]

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.

[MikeNewYork]

Any comments?

I think the sentence would work better with "were" in the "if" clause.

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.

[Tdol]

I think the sentence would work better with "were" in the "if" clause.

What a shock!

[Christopher]

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.