Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    Tan Elaine is offline Key Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • Hong Kong
      • Current Location:
      • Hong Kong
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,037
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Are all the sentences correct and, if so, what is the difference in meaning?

    If he is a qualified doctor, he should have been able to diagnose the illness.

    If he is a qualified doctor, he should be able to diagnose the illness.

    If he were a qualified doctor, he should be able to diagnose the illness.

    If he were a qualified doctor, he should have been able to diagnose the illness.

    Are all the sentences correct and, if so, what is the difference in meaning?

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    philo2009 is offline Key Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Academic
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • Japan
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,507
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Are all the sentences correct and, if so, what is the difference in meaning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tan Elaine View Post
    If he is a qualified doctor, he should have been able to diagnose the illness.

    If he is a qualified doctor, he should be able to diagnose the illness.

    If he were a qualified doctor, he should be able to diagnose the illness.

    If he were a qualified doctor, he should have been able to diagnose the illness.

    Are all the sentences correct and, if so, what is the difference in meaning?

    Thanks.
    Yes, all are possible.
    #1 is a nonpredictive (sometimes termed 'assumptive') conditional. It means basically 'On the assumption that he is a qualified doctor,...'. The apodosis in this case (i.e. that he should have been able to diagnose the illness) is presented as an assertion based on something that the speaker, provisionally at least, accepts as true, rather than one whose truth is open to question depending on that of the subordinate clause.
    #2 is in essence a variant first conditional, where the protasis refers to a possible present (rather than future) situation and the apodosis replaces standard 'will' with (epistemic) 'should'.
    #3 is essentially a second conditional, varying from the standard paradigm only in the minor substitution of 'should' for 'would', though with no substantive semantic difference.
    #4 is a variant second conditional, combining a counterfactual present protasis (implying that he IS not a doctor) with a similarly counterfactual past apodosis (he in fact WAS not able to diagnose the illness - i.e. as a result of his not BEING a doctor, either then or now). This combination is not uncommon where a long-term/lifelong identity or characteristic is considered retrospectively as grounds for the fulfilment or otherwise of certain past circumstances.
    Last edited by philo2009; 25-Jul-2013 at 08:17.

Similar Threads

  1. Difference in meaning of sentences
    By Tan Elaine in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 30-Nov-2011, 07:10
  2. Difference in meaning of sentences
    By Tan Elaine in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14-Jul-2009, 22:42
  3. Difference in meaning between sentences
    By kohyoongliat in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 23-May-2007, 15:52
  4. difference in meaning between sentences
    By kohyoongliat in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-May-2007, 10:14
  5. Difference in meaning between sentences
    By kohyoongliat in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 25-Mar-2007, 02:22

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •