correct tense 2

[Casiopea]

Hela, insist, insist!

2nd Conditional
Used to express unreal situations in the present or future.

[at the time I though that] if I left/did in fact leave Dublin, I would [be] abandon[ing] my brothers and sisters. No, (on second thought) I really couldn’t do that [is what I was thinking at that time, at that present moment in time].

3rd Conditional
Used to express conditions in the past that did not happen. Often used to express criticism or regret with would have, could have or should have.

[thinking back to that time; in retrospect] if I had left Dublin, I would have abandoned my brothers and sisters. No, (on second thought)?? I really wouldn’t have done that??

She didn't leave, so why the second thoughts?

[hela]

Dear Casiopea,

But could this sentence refer to a real past action,i.e., if I left (yesterday = real past ?) I would abandon (unreal present or future ?) = mixed condiotional ??

I thought that type 2 conditional = if + simple past (or rather the past subjunctive) + present conditional (would + bare infinitive) expressed an improbable action in the future (or present) and not a real condition in the past wich would be expressed by another type 2conditional,i.e., if + simple past of the indicative + simple past of the indicative in the main clause too.

Here is a not very good example of a real past condition:
If he was not quarelling with his brothers and sisters (past progressive of the indicative = real action in the past) it meant that he was ill (simple past = real past action again).

What do you think?
Best wishes,
Hela

[slah2001]

HI HELA

IN ORDER TO FIND A HELPFUL ANWER ABOUT THE MODAL "COULD" please go to this link www.englishpage.com/modals/could.html

hear from you soon

[Casiopea]

Hi, Hela. Sorry for the late response. <I've been away.>

But could this sentence refer to a real past action,i.e., if I left (yesterday = real past ?) I would abandon (unreal present or future ?) = mixed condiotional ??

No. It couldn't. You're right. If [past], would expresses the present or future. In our example, the writer is reflecting back on a decision she made in the past as if she were back in the past at the time, thereby making If [past], would relevant. Her thoughts are back in the past, and reflecting on the decision she's faced with at that present moment in time:

[At the time I thought] "If I left (today or tomorrow or next week), I would ... "

I thought that type 2 conditional = if + simple past (or rather the past subjunctive) + present conditional (would + bare infinitive) expressed an improbable action in the future (or present) and not a real condition in the past

Correct. And the condition is about the event, not the time.

[hela]

Thanks Casiopea, it's clearer to me now.

May I ask you another question? In the following examples do we have a mixed conditional type 1 + type 3?

1) If he is clever as you think, he should have been able to understand this article of philosophy.
2) If I am as clever as you think, I should have become rich by now.
3) If you are so hungry, you shouldn't have missed breakfast this morning.

Does the condition here express the reason for the main clause ?

Gratefully yours,
Hela

[Casiopea]

Right. These are mixed: present + past.

1) If he is as clever as you think, he should have been able to understand this article of philosophy.
=> But he wasn't able to understand the article. I disagree with you: He isn't as clever as you think.

2) If I am as clever as you think, I should have become rich by now.
=> But I'm not rich. I agree with you: I am not as clever as you think.

What do you think about this one, Hela?

3) If you are so hungry, you shouldn't have missed breakfast this morning.

[hela]

Hello Casiopea,

Are all the above sentences grammatically correct and idiomatic or are they written in informal English?

All the best

[Tdol]

Hela, I'm not sure what you mean by the question- they are correct, but your question implies that informal is incorrect, which is far from the case. If you want to know whether such structures could be used fortmally, then I don't see why not, though the third, which you haven't answered yet, would not be used in a very formal conversation because it's fairly critical.

[hela]

3) If you are so hungry, you shouldn't have missed breakfast this morning.

What I meant by this one is:

"Iif you didn't miss breakfast this morning (It's 13:00 now) you wouldn't be so hungry now."

Is it possible to turn this into a mixed conditional?

Kind regards,
Hela

[Casiopea]

As is, it's semantically awkward, Let me show you by reversing the clauses:

EX: ?You shouldn't have missed breakfast, if you are so hungry.

With additional context (i.e. knowing the discourse situation) it's fine:

EX: If you are so hungry, [you should have eaten] you shouldn't have missed breakfast.

Hela, we seem to have gone off course here. I suggest you start a new thread, on mixed conditionals.