Really Mixed Conditionals
- Thread starter Tdol
- Start date
- Views : 178,714
- Status
A
Anonymous
Guest
It is a very strange conditional and it only seems to work with 'should'. ;-)
A
aijex ijaz
Guest
Well, I would say that there are contexts where the two options can make sense. However, considered alone, in themselves, they may pose a bit of a dificulty for someone trying to make sense out of them.
MikeNewYork
VIP Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Member Type
- Academic
- Native Language
- American English
- Home Country
- United States
- Current Location
- United States
tdol said:
I think the sentence would work better with "were" in the "if" clause.
As it stands, I would accept either modal.
With should, it means that if he is a good doctor (and presumably was then) one can legitimately expect a correct diagnosis from him.
With would, it means that a good doctor would have made a correct diagnosis; since this one did not, he is probably not a good doctor.
C
Christopher
Guest
If he is such a good doctor he would have diagnesed the illness, because if he wasn't he may have not known anything about that sort of illness.
C
Christopher
Guest
If he is such a good doctor he would have diagnesed the illness, because if he wasn't he may have not known anything about that sort of illness.
S
sylvia philobos
Guest
if he were/ had been such a good doctor, he would have diagnosed the disease.
this means that he is not a good doctor that is why he could not diagnose the disease.
this is correct if you want to follow the rule. However I think the one with should makes sense because that is what is expected from a good doctor.
this means that he is not a good doctor that is why he could not diagnose the disease.
this is correct if you want to follow the rule. However I think the one with should makes sense because that is what is expected from a good doctor.
Last edited:
neurobotanist
New member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2005
sylvia philobos said:
So.... what is the final verdict? I was more comfortable with no.1, but after reading all your comments, I'm not sure anymore!! :shock:
I think the sentence 'if he had been a good doctor, he would have dignosed the disease' is used in a different situation, an even that happened in a more distant past. It's sort of like talking about a past event, isn't it? e.g. Mary has been suffering from anorexia all these years. She went to see Dr Death last year, and if he had been a good doctor, he would have diagnosed the disease.
Whereas the original question 'if he is/were a good doctor, he should have diagnosed the disease' sounds more like something that just happened recently....
someone... please enlighten me.
Oh, and I'm also a new member. Nice to meet you all!
neurobotanist
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Native Language
- British English
- Home Country
- UK
- Current Location
- Japan
If he is such a good doctor, he should have diagnosed the illness- This is the one I'd use, where he didn't diagnose the illness, but the question about his medical ability is current. ;-)
Hamburg
Junior Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Member Type
- English Teacher
- Native Language
- English
- Home Country
- Scotland
- Current Location
- Germany
Both imply that the man is not a very good doctor. (I'm good at stating the obvious :roll: )
I think that "He should have" is more critical of the man's abilities than "He would have", that though may be due to my Glasgow dialect. ;-)
I think that "He should have" is more critical of the man's abilities than "He would have", that though may be due to my Glasgow dialect. ;-)
Last edited:
will peters
New member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
Hi, I'm new here. I agree with Iain (good Scottish spelling!) that were (or was) would be more usual in the 'if' part, because we obviously have our doubts. To me 'If he is such a good doctor' is more likely to lead into a question than a conditional; i.e. 'If he is such a good doctor, why didn't he diagnose the illness?' But I can't say that either sounds totally wrong.
- Status
