If there were a giant 2.8 meters tall, he would hit the Guinness record.

[keannu]

Does this conditional belong to unreal present or unreal future?
Conditionals define that conditional 2(or hypothetical conditional) is for unreal or hypothetical future, while conditional 1(or predictive conditional) is for real or possible present, but a few cases seem to mean also an unlikely present like this. It wouldn't mean "what if there would appear a giant in the future..", but an unlikely creature in the present.

ex)If there were a giant 2.8 meters tall, he would hit the Guinness record.

I think conditionals are the hardest area to understand as there's so many exceptions and variations, but I think I need to understand even those variations. I concluded that there's no 100 percent fixed pattern in people's speech in every language. If I'm asked about conditionals of Korean language, I have no way to answer about the rules as I've been quite naturally familiar with the natural way of saying them. It would be like asking a centipede to analyze its feet movement.

[5jj]

keannu, I suggested in another of your threads, that this is a topic to be raised in the Linguistics forum. It is too academic a question to cover here. I will happily devote hundreds of hours and many, many A4 pages to a discussion on this - but not in the 'Ask a Teacher' forum. Most people come to this forum for a fairly simple answer to a (usually) fairly simple question.

[keannu]

Does this conditional belong to unreal present or unreal future?
Conditionals define that conditional 2(or hypothetical conditional) is for unreal or hypothetical future, while conditional 1(or predictive conditional) is for real or possible future, but a few cases seem to mean also an unlikely present like this. It wouldn't mean "what if there would appear a giant in the future..", but an unlikely creature in the present.

ex)If there were a giant 2.8 meters tall, he would hit the Guinness record.

I think conditionals are the hardest area to understand as there's so many exceptions and variations, but I think I need to understand even those variations. I concluded that there's no 100 percent fixed pattern in people's speech in every language. If I'm asked about conditionals of Korean language, I have no way to answer about the rules as I've been quite naturally familiar with the natural way of saying them. It would be like asking a centipede to analyze its feet movement

[keannu]

QUOTE=fivejedjon;813839]keannu, I suggested in another of your threads, that this is a topic to be raised in the Linguistics forum. It is too academic a question to cover here. I will happily devote hundreds of hours and many, many A4 pages to a discussion on this - but not in the 'Ask a Teacher' forum. Most people come to this forum for a fairly simple answer to a (usually) fairly simple question.[/QUOTE]

Sorry!!! I moved it there in a thunder's speed!!

[5jj]

Conditionals define that conditional 2(or hypothetical conditional) is for unreal or hypothetical future,

Stop there. The so-called 'Second Condition(al)' can refer to a counterfactual present or a hypothetical future.

while conditional 1(or predictive conditional) is for real or possible present

No. The so-called 'First Conditional' generally refers to a real future possibility.

Before I look at the rest of your post (or somebody else does), are you happy with my response so far? If not, please try to explain what appears to be difficult.

[keannu]

Stop there. The so-called 'Second Condition(al)' can refer to a counterfactual present or a hypothetical future.No. The so-called 'First Conditional' generally refers to a real future possibility.

Before I look at the rest of your post (or somebody else does), are you happy with my response so far? If not, please try to explain what appears to be difficult.

I'm quite satisfied with your response, but the thing is how to reorganize the lables and categories among the traditional definitions(1,2,3), yours(yours is quite more logical) and the one from Wikipedia. I'm pretty much worried about how to summarize all of them and to explain to my students.
Anyway, I won't stop asking about questions of conditionals, as this issue has caused me tremedous confusion and lack of understaning of English for a log time. And the question right here was, as the wikepedia material Conditional sentence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) suggests, (I might have misunderstood), conditionals 2's present has not only counterfactual ones such as (If I had a car, I would travel to Seoul), but also an unfeasible remote possibility of the present such as (If there was a man 2.8 tall, he would...). This sentence is not to be allocated to the hypothetical future, but seems hard to define by present counterfactual concept as it's hard to verify. I don't mean many, but few cases seem to present the present unlikelihood. That's why need your opinion.

You can also refer to this part of the Wikipedia one.
"Counterfactual
In these constructions, the condition clause expresses a condition that is known to be false, or presented as unlikely."

[5jj]

I find it difficult to respond fully, as you have tried to cover a lot in one post. I have attempted below, to address some of your points.

I'm quite satisfied with your response, but the thing is how to reorganize the lables and categories among the traditional definitions(1,2,3)

I have simply abandoned the unhelpful traditional classes Have you considered explaining how the language works, rather than trying to explain how it fits (or doesn't fit ) into 'rules' thought up by others?

You can also refer to this part of the Wikipedia ...

I never rely on Wilipedia as a primary source for anything The article you refer to could have been changed just ten seconds ago - by an alcoholic infant from British West Hartlepool.

[keannu]

I find it difficult to respond fully, as you have tried to cover a lot in one post. I have attempted below, to address some of your points. I have simply abandoned the unhelpful traditional classes Have you considered explaining how the language works, rather than trying to explain how it fits (or doesn't fit ) into 'rules' thought up by others?

I never rely on Wilipedia as a primary source for anything The article you refer to could have been changed just ten seconds ago - by an alcoholic infant from British West Hartlepool.

The potential problem could be here is that each one of us is anonymous and hasn't built up strong trusty relationship with one another. I'm an English tutor in Korea, and I've taught a lot of students so far, but due to the problem of my non being a being native speaker, I frequently have lots of problems in explaining this or that.
I've never asked you any question just for fun or for killing time, but from the sheer intention or thirst for knowledge. Maybe I might have made nonsense or silly questions to you so far, and I apologize for them.

The thing is ...I have frequently quoted your explanation to my students saying "This grammar rule is from a very experienced, eminent, and the greatest UK teacher" to explain delicate and subtle problems. I'm not flattering you.

I'm seriously considering converting every concept of conditionals from the previous ones to your concepts of 4 types of conditionals.I know wikipedia ones are from common people that are not that reliable, I just found some part of the conditional changed as you said. Could you tell me who the author is for the material? I may have to deliver his name to my students or any publisher for a possible publication of the revolutionary conditionals.

Regretfully, any Korean English books in schools or any grammar books have not dealt with "factual conditional" and "predictive conditional except the tuture one" so far, so almost half of the conditionals are not understood by most Koreans. I was really shocked to see your material finding the uncultivated areas of conditonals.

I'm willing to teach my students with your conditionals as they are more logical and understandable than the number-based traditional ones(1,2,3) The tradtionals ones are hard even for teachers as numbers are not actual things in life and hard to memorize and meanigless.

My question in the last posting was from my sheer curiosity. I think some examples I've read can denote that some sentences can mean "possible hypothetical conditions" that can't be views as a pure counter-factual present such as
"If there were an unmanned island with only one person...." ---(I don't remember clearly if this is what I read before)
It seems not a counter-factual but an unlikely condition in the present, so I think even there could be a hypothetical condition for the present.

You can either convince me or get rid of my misunderstanding. Thanks a lot, the only Master of mine here!!!

[5jj]

The thing is ...I have frequently quoted your explanation to my students saying "This grammar rule is from a very experienced, eminent, and the greatest UK teacher" to explain delicate and subtle problems.

One day they will want to know who this is. When they find out that he is an unknown person, one of several who post answers on an internet forum, even if it is a respected one, they are not going to be too impressed.

I'm seriously considering converting every concept of conditionals from the previous ones to your concepts of 4 types of conditionals.

It would be nice to think that I was the first to come up with this idea, but that is simply not the case. Indeed, the idea of three (or four/five) numbered main types of conditionals seems to be found mainly in course books and fairly basic grammars. It is a simplification which some learners and less experienced teachers find helpful, but few serious grammarians present it, as you see:

R A Close (1992 - original work, 1962) groups conditional sentences according to whether they assume a fact or imagine non-fact to be actual fact.
Close, R A (1992) A Teacher’s Grammar, Hove: LTP

Sylvia Chalker (1984) notes; "A common simplification is to say that there are three types of conditional clauses [...] but this arbitrariliy suggests that all other tense combinations are exceptions, which they are not".
Chalker, Sylvia (1984) Current English Grammar, London: Macmillan

Quirk et al discuss (1985) direct conditions, open and hypothetical, indirect conditions and rhetorical conditional clauses and (1972) real and unreal conditions. They look at a number of possible tense/aspect and modal combinations without making any attempt to fit them into 'first, second, third conditional' classes.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartik, Jan (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman
Quirk et al (1972) A Grammar of Contemporary English, London: Longman

Sinlair et al (1990) note: "Foreign learners are often taught that there are three kinds of conditional sentences [...] This is largely correct, but does not fully describe the normal patterns of tense in conditional clauses."
Sinclair, John (Editor-in-Chief), (1990) Collins Cobuild English Grammar, London: HarperCollins

George Yule (1998) looks at conditionals under the headings real conditionals, factual and predictive, and unreal conditionals, hypothetical and counterfactual.
Yule, George (1998) Explaining English Grammar, Oxford: OUP

Martin Parrott (200) notes: "Some people argue strongly that we should avoid using the term conditional and that we should avoid the four basic types; we can expect to see course materials that reflect their views".
Parrot, Martin (2000) Grammar for English Language Teachers, Cambridge: CUP

Huddleston and Pullum (2002) consider a wide range of tense/aspect and modal combinations and their meanings under the broad headings of open and remote conditional constructions. No first, second or third conditionals for them.
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge: CUP

Carter and McCarthy (2006) discuss the first second and third conditionals, but then add, "Many conditional clauses occur in these structures, but there are several other possible structures",
Carter, Ronald & McCarthy, Michael (2006) Cambridge Grammar of English, Cambridge: CUP

[keannu]

One day they will want to know who this is. When they find out that he is an unknown person, one of several who post answers on an internet forum, even if it is a respected one, they are not going to be too impressed. It would be nice to think that I was the first to come up with this idea, but that is simply not the case. Indeed, the idea of three (or four/five) numbered main types of conditionals seems to be found mainly in course books and fairly basic grammars. It is a simplification which some learners and less experienced teachers find helpful, but few serious grammarians present it, as you see:

R A Close (1992 - original work, 1962) groups conditional sentences according to whether they assume a fact or imagine non-fact to be actual fact.
Close, R A (1992) A Teacher’s Grammar, Hove: LTP

Sylvia Chalker (1984) notes; "A common simplification is to say that there are three types of conditional clauses [...] but this arbitrariliy suggests that all other tense combinations are exceptions, which they are not".
Chalker, Sylvia (1984) Current English Grammar, London: Macmillan

Quirk et al discuss (1985) direct conditions, open and hypothetical, indirect conditions and rhetorical conditional clauses and (1972) real and unreal conditions. They look at a number of possible tense/aspect and modal combinations without making any attempt to fit them into 'first, second, third conditional' classes.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartik, Jan (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman
Quirk et al (1972) A Grammar of Contemporary English, London: Longman

Sinlair et al (1990) note: "Foreign learners are often taught that there are three kinds of conditional sentences [...] This is largely correct, but does not fully describe the normal patterns of tense in conditional clauses."
Sinclair, John (Editor-in-Chief), (1990) Collins Cobuild English Grammar, London: HarperCollins

George Yule (1998) looks at conditionals under the headings real conditionals, factual and predictive, and unreal conditionals, hypothetical and counterfactual.
Yule, George (1998) Explaining English Grammar, Oxford: OUP

Martin Parrott (200) notes: "Some people argue strongly that we should avoid using the term conditional and that we should avoid the four basic types; we can expect to see course materials that reflect their views".
Parrot, Martin (2000) Grammar for English Language Teachers, Cambridge: CUP

Huddleston and Pullum (2002) consider a wide range of tense/aspect and modal combinations and their meanings under the broad headings of open and remote conditional constructions. No first, second or third conditionals for them.
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge: CUP

Carter and McCarthy (2006) discuss the first second and third conditionals, but then add, "Many conditional clauses occur in these structures, but there are several other possible structures",
Carter, Ronald & McCarthy, Michael (2006) Cambridge Grammar of English, Cambridge: CUP

Thanks a lot! Mr.Gramorak. with all respect!