will x 2

<[quote=MrPedantic]I'm sorry, I was unclear. I'll see if I can find a form of words we can agree on. Perhaps:...>


Sometimes, to express an inference:

2. If MrP was the man you saw in the car at 6am, he can't have been the person who stole my bike at 6.01. >

Yes, I'd call that an epistemic conditional (belief, etc.) and I'd do the same with:

If he'll kill himself, he'll kill us.


<b) 'Will' does not primarily express futurity; it simply means 'is prepared to'. In which case, #3 can only be taken as a modalised type 1. (But I'd suggest that this is more problematical than treating the sentence as an inference that doesn't need to 'obey the rules'.) >


I agree that it the latter does not fit well into the 0-3 schema. But who gives a damn, eh? Better to also consider semantics and pragmatics, and not just syntax, when one is looking for a desired effect.

Often, what appear to be rules are only hints. We need to use native speaker logic to guide us.

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

Scenario:

I'm having lunch with a friend. To my distress, he orders chicken feet. I am particularly averse to chicken feet, though I know it's a great delicacy. He gets stuck in. I express my repugnance:

"If you'll eat chicken feet, you'll eat anything."

MrP

So are you saying eating chicken feet is a result of eating anything, or are you saying eating anything is a result of eating chicken feet?

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by M56

Often, what appear to be rules are only hints. We need to use native speaker logic to guide us.

Indeed. On the other hand, the 'rules' often cause problems for some ESL students. ESL grammars have a tendency to deal with IF as "standard types 0-3 + exceptions"; whereas of the couple of thousand possible combinations of tense/mood/modal in IF statements, only a relatively small number are of the standard type.

(But you know that as well as I do.)

MrP

Originally Posted by X Mode

So are you saying eating chicken feet is a result of eating anything, or are you saying eating anything is a result of eating chicken feet?

With this kind of conditional (epistemic), it is often better to think of conclusions and not results.

"If you'll eat chicken feet, I conclude that you'll eat anything."

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by X Mode

So are you saying eating chicken feet is a result of eating anything, or are you saying eating anything is a result of eating chicken feet?

Hello XM

Neither. I'd be disinclined to treat it as a cause and effect statement.

"The fact that you are prepared to eat chicken feet implies that you are prepared to eat anything."

Or:

"I deduce from the fact that you are prepared to eat chicken feet the fact that you are prepared to eat anything."

MrP

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

Hello XM

Neither. I'd be disinclined to treat it as a cause and effect statement.

"The fact that you are prepared to eat chicken feet implies that you are prepared to eat anything."

Or:

"I deduce from the fact that you are prepared to eat chicken feet the fact that you are prepared to eat anything."

MrP

As a cause and effect statement, it would serve the purpose of showing a speaker's extreme surprise that someone would eat chicken feet.

If he'll do that, he'll do anything.

Do you know what I mean? It's kind of figurative, not to be taken literally.

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by M56

With this kind of conditional (epistemic), it is often better to think of conclusions and not results.

"If you'll eat chicken feet, I conclude that you'll eat anything."

I agree. I can see that, but one could draw conclusions about results.

If there's a lot of traffic, then that must be why he's late.

There's a lot of traffic, so he's late.

he's late - result - There's a lot of traffic, and I conclude that's why he's late.

If there's traffic, he's always late.

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by X Mode

I agree. I can see that, but one could draw conclusions about results.

If there's a lot of traffic, then that must be why he's late.

There's a lot of traffic, so he's late.

he's late - result - There's a lot of traffic, and I conclude that's why he's late.

If there's traffic, he's always late.

Hmm. I suppose the main clause in every 'cause and effect' IF statement can be re-presented as a conclusion; but I'm not sure that every 'epistemic' IF embodies a cause and effect:

1. If there's a lot of traffic, he's always late => he's late, so I conclude that there's a lot of traffic.

(Which may be invalid.)

2. If it's dark outside, it isn't noon => ?It isn't noon, so it's dark outside.

(Which is invalid.)

I suppose in such cases we're always at risk of 'affirming the antecedent':

If P, then Q.

Q, therefore P.

MrP (or Q)

<I suppose in such cases we're always at risk of 'affirming the antecedent':

If P, then Q.

Q, therefore P.>

Don't Queue before you Pee.

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

Hmm. I suppose the main clause in every 'cause and effect' IF statement can be re-presented as a conclusion; but I'm not sure that every 'epistemic' IF embodies a cause and effect:

1. If there's a lot of traffic, he's always late => he's late, so I conclude that there's a lot of traffic.

(Which may be invalid.)

MrP (or Q)

1. If there's a lot of traffic, he's always late => he's late, so I conclude that there's a lot of traffic.

(Which may be invalid.)

That it may be invalid, to me, is not relevant. What is relevant here is the speaker's point of view based on his or her knowledge of the circumstance and all those involved.

We're not talking about what is actually true, but what the speaker believes to be real and true.

Joe knows Jen very well. He knows Jen is always on time and drives carefully.

"If Jens late, she's stuck in traffic," said Joe.