Really Mixed Conditionals

Status
Not open for further replies.

incognittum

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Member Type
Student or Learner
If he is such a good doctor,
he would have diagnosed the illness.
he should have diagnosed the illness.


Diagnosis - to distinguish or identify (example: a disease) by diagnosis, or to analyze the nature or cause of.

First sentence:

If he is such a good doctor, he would have diagnosed the illness. (1) We can infer from this that he did some kind of diagnosis on the patient, but did not find out about the illness.
(2) Or, that he did know about the illness, but did not analyze it further to draw a complete conclusion about it.

For the second sentence:

If he is such a good doctor, he should have diagnosed the illness. (1) What can be understood here is that he knew about the illness, but did not make a thorough analysis of it, therefore limiting what can be concluded from the diagnosis. The implication here can be that all good doctors should diagnose the illness.
(2)Also, a possibility that he did not find out about the illness exists, and as the sentence may state he was supposed to.

Both parts of each sentence seem to work for each conditional. Although, I think the first part of each sentence fits the meaning of these conditionals somewhat better then the second.

1. If he is such a good doctor, he would have diagnosed the illness. (1) We can infer from this that he did some kind of diagnosis on the patient, but did not find out about the illness.

2. If he is such a good doctor, he should have diagnosed the illness. (1) What can be understood here is that he knew about the illness, but did not make a thorough analysis of it, therefore limiting what can be concluded from the diagnosis. Based on the implication that all good doctors should diagnose the illness.

Now, does this make any sense :?:
 
Last edited:

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
With 'would', doesn't it work better with 'were such a good doctor'?
 

incognittum

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Member Type
Student or Learner
We have to imply that one of these sentences means he did not find the illness and in other that he has found out about it but did not make any further analysis of it.

"Is" refers to that he is a good doctor, for instance; other doctors and patients claim that he is a good doctor. The speaker is contradicting this by saying; he would have diagnosed the illness, but did not find it.

If he is so good, he would have diagnosed it. The word "would" means that while performing the analysis he was supposed to find something wrong with the patient, but did not. It is claimed that the illness exists within the patient, but the doctor did not diagnose it, in other words did not find the illness.

For the word "should" it may state that he found the illness, but did not diagnose it further, as in; he knows about the illness and did not analyse it beyond to get more information about it.

Both of these words can be used either way with both meanings. I think it just depends on personal preference.


PHP:
With 'would', doesn't it work better with 'were such a good doctor'?
It does not make much difference to me if you use "was a good doctor" or "is a good doctor" it depends if you want to refer to past or present.

I need pointers with my writing, if anyone sees errors and such I would appreciate if you pointed that out.
Thank you all.
 
Last edited:

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
This first/third conditional does tend to be used mostly with 'should', though not exclusively. With 'would'the degree of certainty pushes it more towards using the past tense because with the higher degree of certainty, then there is less room for doubt about his inability to me.
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
I think, though, that it's a matter of preference. I would rarely use 'would' in a sentence like this, though know that others would. ;-)
 

nancy_greece

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
i voted and i voted wrong:oops:


well guys it's both one and two because it's mixed
1-3
if+present..........would +have+ p.p
(should, could,might)
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Most sentences of this type use 'should', as seen in the answers, but this is more of an open question than a right/wrong question, and both is not an incorrect answer. ;-)
 

riverkid

Key Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Member Type
English Teacher
Both,

1. "If he is such a good doctor"

AND

2. "If he was such a good doctor"

are possible. The first, using 'is' is more confrontative. In English, past tense forms are often used to show greater doubt [more deference/greater politeness]. The subjunctive form and its partner 'was' both do this.

Number 1 could be viewed in this fashion;

A: He's a great doctor.

B: Yeah right! What a quack! If he's such a good doctor, ... .
 

riverkid

Key Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Member Type
English Teacher
If he is such a good doctor,
he would have diagnosed the illness.
he should have diagnosed the illness.

++++++++++++++++++++

As to the modal meaning, again, you have to be careful which modal meaning is intended. You're going to be all over the board if one person is talking about deontic 'should' and another is thinking epistemic 'should'.

BrE makes greater use of 'should' in an epistemic sense to mean almost the same thing as 'would', sort of like a strong 'probably'. For NaE, 'should' used in these situations would more easily be read with a deontic modal meaning; "it would have been a good thing if he had diagnosed the illness.
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
There are many mixed conditionals. This one with 'is' does exist, but it is not common and normally occurs with 'should have + past participle'.
 

Vincentiu

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Member Type
Student or Learner
I believe that, as it was partially said before, "is" in "if he is such a good doctor" means that the doctor is said to be a good one, regardless the time, of course, but that the speaker is rather skeptic. On the other hand, using "were", as in: "if he were a good doctor", changes the actual meaning in the respect that the skepticism of the speaker is greater; it is less likely of him to be a good doctor.
Yet, not only can we talk about the probability criterium, but also about the 'origin' of the information regarding the doctor's ability: the first type of sentence implies the fact that the speaker is using information that he only heard of ("they say that he is a good doctor"), whereas the second type should be more dependent on the speaker's subjectivity.
I must admit that I am not absolutely sure about what I have just written, but this the way I understand it.
As far as the alternatives are concerned, I chose the first because I think it fits better than the second one. I do not reject the latter option, but "is", in this context, almost necessarily means "should": "Given the fact that he is such a good doctor, at least this is what they say, we would expect from him to get that diagnosis right".
 

jagaba

New member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Mexico
Current Location
Mexico
Any comments?
;-)


I think the sentence would be better with:

If he is a good doctor, He should have diagnosed the illness.

thanks
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan

ricardogonzalo

New member
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Member Type
English Teacher
That sentence could be complemented with both: should or would
With should- the doctor knew the illness, but he didn't want to say anything about it because he considered it curable, but the patient died.
Would- the doctor didn't recognize the ilness and he said nothing because he ignored it. I think.
 

Buddhaheart

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
"Should" as an auxiliary of the subjunctive mood is used to express a supposition that may or may not be true whereas "would" is used to express the conclusion of a condition contrary to fact. I presume the good doctor didn’t diagnose the illness, I would vote for the 2nd choice.
 

lisalia

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Member Type
Student or Learner
I voted for should, but would sounds equally good in hindsight. So I think the correct choice would be the third choice, 'either'.

I think should works if the condition is spoken with anger and criticism directed towards the doctor. To me, should conveys an obligation and/or expectation. The word 'such' indicates that the doctor was perceived to be of good reputation, which would make diagnosing illnesses his/her obligation to the patient and patient's expectation of him. A scene that would be suitable for this sentence: An unsatisfied patient lashing out at a relative who referred her to the doctor because of his reputation: 'If he is such a good doctor, he should have diagnosed the illness!'

On the other hand, the second choice (would) would be used if the speaker is sympathetic towards the doctor. I imagine it being spoken in a regretful tone. 'If he is such a good doctor, he would have diagnosed the illness'. I feel that this sentence is as sad as sentences starting with 'If only...'.

Please excuse me if the explanation may seem a bit strange; I haven't done any grammar exercise in ages and I tend to rely on 'feelings' for this sort of things nowadays.
 

JACOOL

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
Arabic
Home Country
Saudi Arabia
Current Location
Saudi Arabia
I've read through the replys and as far as I an tell that both are corret, am I right? However I chose Either although I think 'should ' is more fimiliar, why? I don't know. What do you think teachers?help;-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top