[Grammar] To see her dancing....

[pseudo]

I know if-clauses can be transferred to participle clauses.

s1. If you come back tomorrow, you'll get more services.
-> Coming back tomorrow, you'll get more services.

And if-clauses can be transferred to to-infinitives.

s2. If you saw her dancing, you'd think she was a pro-dancer but she wasn't.
-> To see her dancing, you'd think she was a pro-dancer but she wasn't.

All the if-clauses that can be transferred to participle clauses can also be transferred to to-infinitives?

Some grammar book(Practical English Usage by Michael Swan, I read recently...) says
in 'to see sb ~, you'd think ~' situation, to-infinitives are used.
But other grammar books have examples like

s3. To take exercise everyday, you will get healthy.
s4. To join the army, I'd be glad.
s5. To see the beautiful lake, you'd never forget it.

All the if-clauses can be transferred to both participle clauses and to-infinitives?
Thanks in advance.

 

[5jj]

I know if-clauses can be [STRIKE]transferred[/STRIKE] changed to participle clauses.

Not without changing the meaning.

s1. If you come back tomorrow, you'll get more services.
-> Coming back tomorrow, you'll get more services.

Your rewritten sentence is closer in meaning to 'when you come come back ....'

And if-clauses can be [STRIKE]transferred[/STRIKE] changed to to-infinitives.

Not without changing the meaning

s2. If you see her dancing, you'd think she was a pro-dancer but she wasn't.Not without changing the meaning.

Your first clause does not mean the same as 'To see her dancing, ...'

Can [STRIKE]A[/STRIKE] all [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] if-clauses that can be transferred to participle clauses [STRIKE]can[/STRIKE] also be transferred to to-infinitives?

Some grammar book (Practical English Usage by Michael Swan, which I read recently...) says
in 'to see sb ~, you'd think ~' situation, to-infinitives are used.
But other grammar books have examples like

s3. To take exercise everyday, you will get healthy.
s4. To join the army, I'd be glad.
s5. To see the beautiful lake, you'd never forget it.

s3 is not correct English. It needs to be something like 'By taking exercise every day (two words), you will become healthy'.
s4 is not correct - it can be only 'Id be glad to join the army'.
s5 just does not work.

 

[emsr2d2]

s2. If you see her dancing, you'd think she was a pro-dancer but she wasn't.

s2 should read "If you saw her dancing, you would think she was a pro-dancer but she isn't/but she's not".

To finish it with "but she wasn't", I would use "If you had seen her dancing, you would have thought she was a pro dancer but she wasn't".

 

[pseudo]

I feel deeply sorry for my nuisance I made.
I just blew up all the text I had written, so I had to rewrite it discursively.
But I have no choice but to ask you some more.
I beg your help.

s1. If you take this medicine, you will get well soon.
-> Taking this medicine, you will get well soon.
-> To take this medicine, you will get well soon.

s1 can be changed in both ways? I think only the first can be.

s2. If you saw her dancing, you'd think she was a pro-dancer but she just started to learn.
-> To see her dancing, you'd think she was a pro-dancer but she just started to learn.

I think s2 cannot be changed to "Seeing her dancing..." Is that right?

s3. I'd be glad to join the army.

Yes. You're right. The grammar book says in that order. But the book also says "to join the army" is changed from an if-clause.
I think if it is changed from an if-clause, it can be placed at the front of the main clause.
So I intentionally changed the order.

And I can't understand what "Not without changing the meaning" means.
Double negative is hard to understand.
Anyway, I wanna know for sure Michael Swan is right.
He says when impressions you receive from sounds or appearances induce wrong judgement, you can say 'to see' or 'to her'
These to-infinitives can be followed by 'you'd think'.

To see him walk down the street, you'd never know he was blind.

Sorry for the nuisance and thank you so much.

 

[5jj]

s1. If you take this medicine, you will get well soon.
-> Taking this medicine, you will get well soon.
-> To take this medicine, you will get well soon.

s1 can be changed in both ways? I think only the first can be.

'Taking this medicine' is closer in meaning to 'when you take' than 'if you take'. 'To take' does not work in ths sentence.

s2. If you saw her dancing, you'd think she was a pro-dancer but she just started to learn.
-> To see her dancing, you'd think she was a pro-dancer but she just started to learn.

I think s2 cannot be changed to "Seeing her dancing..." Is that right?

No. 'Seeing her dance' is possible.

s3 I'd be glad to join the army.

Yes. You're right. The grammar book says in that order. But the book also says "to join the army" is changed from an if-clause.

It isn't.

And I can't understand what "Not without changing the meaning" means.
Double negative is hard to understand.

One negative cancels out the other. If you cannot do something without changing the meaning, then you will change the meaning if you do that something.

Anyway, I [STRIKE]wanna[/STRIKE] want to know for sure Michael Swan is right.
He says when impressions you receive from sounds or appearances induce wrong judgement, you can say 'to see' or 'to hear'
These to-infinitives can be followed by 'you'd think'.

To see him walk down the street, you'd never know he was blind.

Swan is correct, as he usually is.