Why is the present simple not acceptable in (2) but it is in (3)?
1. If I were you, I’d tell him the truth.
2. *If I am you, I’d tell him the truth.
3. If you are a professional singer, I’m Pavarotti.
If X, then Y.
Use the present for X if the fact seems possible, from your point of view or from that of the subject of the clause.
Use the subjunctive for X if the fact is very unlikely or not possible (eg. If I were you).
As for Y, it must be in agreement with X from a tense point of view. (2) is clearly incorrect as "If I am you" is impossible, and the tense in "I'd tell him the truth" doesn't fit with the present in the preceding clause.
(3) is correct because the subject may truly believe he's a professional singer. Then, the second clause "I'm Pavarotti" must be in a matching tense, that is, the present (note that you can have other tenses depending on what you want to say, Cf. mixed conditional on this site -- but here the present is clear).
Don't mix up the two clauses X and Y: that's the difference between (2) and (3).
FRC
Good Francois. Now, our "difficult" student asks what it is about the past simple form, "were", that allows it to be used for unlikely or impossible things. She asks why the present simple cannot be used to show unlikely things.Originally Posted by Francois
Guy trying to chat up girl claims he is Ricky Martin's manager just to impress her:Originally Posted by Francois
Girl: Ha! If you are Ricky Martin's manager, then I am Madonna.
Well, what can I say, such are the rules!Now, our "difficult" student asks what it is about the past simple form, "were", that allows it to be used for unlikely or impossible things. She asks why the present simple cannot be used to show unlikely things
Yeah, the point seems to be that he might be Ricky Martin's manager, though the following clause shows that the speaker knows better and is clearly being ironic. In other words, the sentence is constructed as if she would admit it was possible, but that is just to make her sarcasm work.Ha! If you are Ricky Martin's manager, then I am Madonna
What do you think?
FRC
So the "it's arbitrary" approach is all we have?Originally Posted by Francois
I agree with you analysis. Not here though:Yeah, the point seems to be that he might be Ricky Martin's manager, though the following clause shows that the speaker knows better and is clearly being ironic. In other words, the sentence is constructed as if she would admit it was possible, but that is just to make her sarcasm work.
What do you think?
Psychiatrist to patient: If you are Napolean, then I am Caesar, which I'm not, am I?
Languages are not maths :|So the "it's arbitrary" approach is all we have?
Yes, I believe it's a similar idea, though the purpose is different. Both examples are using absurd reasoning. In the first one, this is in a sarcastic way, and in the second one, that is to make a genuine point to a patient. Both says "Ok, let's suppose X is true, then it leads to Y, which is clearly wrong, so X is wrong too". Whether "X => Y" is true is another debate, but you get the point.Not here though:
Psychiatrist to patient: If you are Napolean, then I am Caesar, which I'm not, am I?
FRC
Indeed not, but how would you tie in all of this to:Originally Posted by Francois
The "Proximity and Distance" files.