will x 2

[MrPedantic]

'Reversed zero conditional' is not a term I'm happy with; I still prefer 'inferential', where the intention is to present an inference, rather than cause+effect. But perhaps some ESL students would find it easier to think in terms of 'variations on type 0/3 if-statements', rather than 'non-type-0/3 if-statements'.

"Well, if Chelsea don't win tomorrow, all I can say is, someone's tapped up the ref."

The structure here is similar to your 'Joe' example. We can reduce it to:

1. If Chelsea don't win, someone has tapped up the ref. →
2. If Chelsea don't win, (it's because) someone has tapped up the ref.

If we accept that the term 'zero conditional' can be used not only to present a 'scientific truth', but also (by analogy) to present a personal belief, as in your example, we can say that #2 is a derivative of this 'zero conditional':

3. When someone taps up the ref, Chelsea don't win.

In #3, we have 'If P, next Q'. In #2, we have 'If Q, it's because P' (i.e. the 'reversed' version of #3):

4. When Chelsea don't win, (it's because) someone taps up the ref.
4a. When Chelsea don't win, (it's because) someone has tapped up the ref.

The use of the present perfect in #1 may seem to rule out the 'zero conditional'. Indeed, most of the analyses of If-statements I've seen seem to ignore the present perfect altogether, although it's fairly common in such structures – where emphasis is required, for example:

5. If he has already signed, the contract will need to be reviewed.

But to my mind, a present perfect in either protasis or apodosis (or both) can equally present a universal law:

6. If you heat water to 100C, it boils. →
7. If you have heated water to 101C, it has boiled.

Therefore it seems definable as a 'zero conditional'.

From which I conclude that this sentence can be classed as a 'reversed zero conditional':

8. If Chelsea don't win tomorrow, someone has tapped up the ref.

MrP

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

'Reversed zero conditional' is not a term I'm happy with; I still prefer 'inferential', where the intention is to present an inference, rather than cause+effect. But perhaps some ESL students would find it easier to think in terms of 'variations on type 0/3 if-statements', rather than 'non-type-0/3 if-statements'.


The structure here is similar to your 'Joe' example. We can reduce it to:

1. If Chelsea don't win, someone has tapped up the ref. →
2. If Chelsea don't win, (it's because) someone has tapped up the ref.

If we accept that the term 'zero conditional' can be used not only to present a 'scientific truth', but also (by analogy) to present a personal belief, as in your example, we can say that #2 is a derivative of this 'zero conditional':

3. When someone taps up the ref, Chelsea don't win.

In #3, we have 'If P, next Q'. In #2, we have 'If Q, it's because P' (i.e. the 'reversed' version of #3):

4. When Chelsea don't win, (it's because) someone taps up the ref.
4a. When Chelsea don't win, (it's because) someone has tapped up the ref.

The use of the present perfect in #1 may seem to rule out the 'zero conditional'. Indeed, most of the analyses of If-statements I've seen seem to ignore the present perfect altogether, although it's fairly common in such structures – where emphasis is required, for example:

5. If he has already signed, the contract will need to be reviewed.

But to my mind, a present perfect in either protasis or apodosis (or both) can equally present a universal law:

6. If you heat water to 100C, it boils. →
7. If you have heated water to 101C, it has boiled.

Therefore it seems definable as a 'zero conditional'.

From which I conclude that this sentence can be classed as a 'reversed zero conditional':

8. If Chelsea don't win tomorrow, someone has tapped up the ref.

MrP

To me, the present perfect can't be used to represent a universal law or truth. The present perfect means something has happened, but it doesn't mean it happens all the time. Even if the present perfect is used to speak of something that we know to be a universal law or truth, it is still only referring to a specific time or specific times. To me, a zero conditional speaks of "all time". It carries the meaning of "whenever". As I see it, that meaning is lost if the present perfect is used. That meaning might only remain based on our knowledge of universal laws and universal truths. The meaning, however, does not remain in the sentence itself. We have to separate what the sentence really means from what we understand to be true all the time.

7. If you have heated water to 101C, it has boiled.

Therefore it seems definable as a 'zero conditional'.

Yes, it seems so, but I wouldn't define it that way. I don't think it would work that way all the time.

With the present simple in both clauses, a universal law or truth can always be stated.

[MrPedantic]

...To me, the present perfect can't be used to represent a universal law or truth...

I'm not so sure:

When a fool has made up his mind the market has gone by.
- Proverb, (Spanish)


When a large vessel has opened a way it is easy for a small one to follow.
- Proverb, (Chinese)

When a man has fallen into the mire, the more he flounders the more he fouls himself.
- Proverb, (Italian)

When a mouse has fallen into a meal sack, he thinks he is the miller himself.
- Proverb, (Dutch)

When a musician hath forgotten his note,
He makes as though a crumb stuck in his throat.
- Proverb

MrP

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

I'm not so sure:

When a fool has made up his mind the market has gone by.
- Proverb, (Spanish)


When a large vessel has opened a way it is easy for a small one to follow.
- Proverb, (Chinese)

When a man has fallen into the mire, the more he flounders the more he fouls himself.
- Proverb, (Italian)

When a mouse has fallen into a meal sack, he thinks he is the miller himself.
- Proverb, (Dutch)

When a musician hath forgotten his note,
He makes as though a crumb stuck in his throat.
- Proverb

MrP

Those things are true only if they have happened. A zero conditional can be true even if something doesn't actually happen. So, I still say a zero conditional requires the simple present in order to express a universal truth.

If A happens, then B happens. This is true even if it has never happened, and even if it will never happen.

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by X Mode

Those things are true only if they have happened. A zero conditional can be true even if something doesn't actually happen. So, I still say a zero conditional requires the simple present in order to express a universal truth.

If A happens, then B happens. This is true even if it has never happened, and even if it will never happen.

1. If you heat water to 100C, it boils.
2. If Joe's late, he's stuck in traffic.
3. If a large vessel has opened a way, it is easy for a small one to follow.

So #2 is true, even if Joe has never been late, and never will be late?

MrP

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

1. If you heat water to 100C, it boils.
2. If Joe's late, he's stuck in traffic.
3. If a large vessel has opened a way, it is easy for a small one to follow.

So #2 is true, even if Joe has never been late, and never will be late?

MrP

According to the person speaking, yes.

Very good question, by the way.

Number 1 is true even if you have never heated water to 100C and never will heat water to 100C.

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

1. If you heat water to 100C, it boils.
2. If Joe's late, he's stuck in traffic.
3. If a large vessel has opened a way, it is easy for a small one to follow.

So #2 is true, even if Joe has never been late, and never will be late?

MrP

Yes, it's true. That's the only thing it could be. Of course, the speaker might find out something different later on. But for the time being, it's true in the speaker's mind.

That's the only reason Joe could ever - ever be late. That Joe is always on time. - so dependable - that Joe.

[MrPedantic]

1. If you heat water to 100C, it boils.
2. If Joe's late, he's stuck in traffic.
3. If a large vessel has opened a way, it is easy for a small one to follow.

We agree on #1: zero conditional.

To recap on other points of agreement: a zero conditional

a) requires a present tense in each clause;
b) can take 'when' instead of 'if';
c) presents a 'universal law'; or, by extension, what the speaker believes to be a 'universal law'.

Usually, with a zero conditional, you would expect the IF clause to contain the condition (the cause), and the main clause to contain the result (the effect). However, we've also suggested that although #2 presents the effect (lateness) before the cause (being stuck in traffic), #2 may also be regarded as a variety of zero conditional: 'if P, it's because Q'.

On the other hand, you don't accept #3 as a zero conditional. This I find interesting. #3 meets requirements b) and c); moreover, it presents the cause before the effect, in the way of a regular conditional. It's true that the tense of the IF clause is the present perfect; but some grammatical sources (Collins Cobuild, for instance) accept a present perfect in a zero conditional.

What kind of conditional is #3, in your opinion?

MrP

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

We agree on #1: zero conditional.

To recap on other points of agreement: a zero conditional

a) requires a present tense in each clause;
b) can take 'when' instead of 'if';
c) presents a 'universal law'; or, by extension, what the speaker believes to be a 'universal law'.

Usually, with a zero conditional, you would expect the IF clause to contain the condition (the cause), and the main clause to contain the result (the effect). However, we've also suggested that although #2 presents the effect (lateness) before the cause (being stuck in traffic), #2 may also be regarded as a variety of zero conditional: 'if P, it's because Q'.

On the other hand, you don't accept #3 as a zero conditional. This I find interesting. #3 meets requirements b) and c); moreover, it presents the cause before the effect, in the way of a regular conditional. It's true that the tense of the IF clause is the present perfect; but some grammatical sources (Collins Cobuild, for instance) accept a present perfect in a zero conditional.

What kind of conditional is #3, in your opinion?

MrP

3. If a large vessel has opened a way, it is easy for a small one to follow.

I can only answer that question with a question. What if a large vessel has never opened a way? Is this still true all the time? I would say it's true if and when it does open its way, not if it has opened its way.


What if it's true when it opens its way but has yet to open its way? It's a possibility.

[MrPedantic]

It is a proverb; but maybe it's too unfamiliar to appear 'universally true'. Let me try some parallel examples:

1. If a person has died, he is no longer alive.
2. If a person has not arrived on time, we say he is 'late'.
3. If MS Excel has not been installed on your pc, you can't open an Excel spreadsheet.

It seems to me that these can only be zero conditionals.

MrP