a very confusing sentence concerning the third conditional of "if"

[man of manners]

I read all your most appreciated opinions.

I agree with jutfrank and Piscean about being the sentence referring to the past.

With due respect to all opinions, I'd like to give mine.

I'd like to clarify the whole matter at first as I see it:

We know that the conjunction "after" can be used in the If-clause in the first or the second or the third conditional or mixed conditionals, as well.

Let me show some examples so that it will be clear to all of us.

An example with the first conditional is: "if he succeeds after he studies/has studied hard, I will be so much happy."

When this example is backshifted in the past, we can get an example with the second conditional as follows, "if he succeeded after he studied/had studied hard, I would be so much happy."

We also can get an example with the third conditional as we said at the beginning of our discussion. Note the following example -which is grammatically correct as we previously discussed.

"if he had succeeded after he studied/had studied hard, I would have been so much happy."

As for the third conditional, we previously said that we need the past perfect, which denotes an irrealis past situation, and it doesn't conflict with the past perfect, which denotes a real past situation, used after the conjunction "after".

Also, the past simple can be used instead of the past perfect, which denotes an irrealis past situation, less commonly whether in formal or informal context as we will see later in the examples I will provide.

All I have said so far is about my opinion which I understood from your very much useful opinions and the examples I found on the internet.

Now, as for the first example, on the internet, I gave, I think it is a less common third conditional in which the past simple is used in the if-clause instead of the past perfectas I previously said because the sentence we are discussing implies the meaning of the simple sentence:

"you weren't anything like me after you had/ had had your first baby, so you weren't in shock and dismay...."

which also means:

"I was in shock and dismay after I had/had had my first baby but you weren't so you weren't anything like me after you had/had had your first baby, but if you had been, you would have been in shock and dismay as I was after I had my first baby"

That is what I think about the sentence I gave, so what do you think of my opinion?
Thank you very very much for your much appreciated posts.

 

[jutfrank]

I'd like to clarify the whole matter at first as I see it

With respect, I don't think you've done this. Your post is unclear, badly presented and hard to follow. Try organising your sentences into separate paragraphs, then maybe I will be able to follow your thinking.

...what do you think of my opinion?

What opinion? I can't pick it out of your post. Can you say it again in one sentence?

 

[man of manners]

What about now? I made it pretty clear.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I disagree that the condition clause refers to the present.

What I have learnt is that the past subjunctive in the condition clause does not refer to the past.
Why does 'If you were' here refer to the past?

 

[Matthew Wai]

'If you bore left after you reached the fork, you did not get lost/would not have got lost.'
The underlined time clause is a past-time marker, so 'bore' refers to the past instead of being a past subjunctive.

Is that correct?

 

[man of manners]

'If you bore left after you reached the fork, you did not get lost/would not have got lost.'
The underlined time clause is a past-time marker, so 'bore' refers to the past instead of being a past subjunctive.
Is that correct?

According to my explanation above, you are correct, but using the past simple instead of the past perfect, which denotes a real past situation, in this kind of sentences is less common than using the past perfect and we will be sure of this when I keep on giving the examples I collected.
Please, read post #101 and tell me your opinion. I invite you all to read it.

 

[man of manners]

No. The past perfect in the if- clause would denote an irrealis situation.

I am really sorry for this not intended mistake. I assure you I wrote it absent-mindedly.

 

[Matthew Wai]

'If you bore left after you reached the fork, you did not get lost/would not have got lost.'

The speaker does not know whether the listener bore left and got lost, both of which are possibilities.

Is that correct?

 

[jutfrank]

After over 100 posts, I'm not sure what we're trying to achieve here. Let me try to clarify.

• Is there a specific question to be answered about grammar?
• Are you asking something about real and unreal situations?
• Or about use of conditional sentences in general?
• Are you asking something about use of conjunctions such as after in condition clauses?
• Or would you just like some comments on your opinion? If so, it's hard to see what exactly your opinion is.
• Is your opinion about the meaning of any particular sentence? If so, let's just focus on that one sentence, such as we were doing with the "shock and dismay" example.
• Is what you mean by your "opinion" in fact your analysis of the grammar of a certain sentence? If so, which one?

 

[Matthew Wai]

We know that the conjunction "after" can be used in the If-clause...

I would say 'after' can be used after the if-clause, as the time-clause is not part of the conditional clause.

When this example is backshifted in the past, we can get an example with the second conditional as follows, "if he succeeded after he studied/had studied hard, I would be so much happy."

I don't think it is the second conditional because 'succeeded' is not the past subjunctive here; that's what Piscean taught me a few hours ago.

 

[GoesStation]

The speaker does not know whether the listener bore left and got lost, both of which are possibilities.

Is that correct?

At least in AmE, to bear left or right is used only in the imperative, future, conditional, and, possibly, continuous tenses. It isn't used in non-continuous past tenses.

 

[man of manners]

The speaker does not know whether the listener bore left and got lost, both of which are possibilities.
Is that correct?

Dear, Matthew
If the sentence you gave is "If you bore left after you reached the fork, youdid not get lost.", then this sentence is a false conditional and "If" means "If it is true that".
In brief, this sentence means the listener did bear left after he had reached the fork so the speaker is reassuring the listener that he hasn't lost his way.

And if the sentence is "If you bore left after you reached the fork, you would not have got lost.", then this sentence is the same as the sentence I gave and it implies that the listener did not bear left after he had reached the fork so he got lost.

I hope I have clarified what I mean.

 

[man of manners]

Is there a specific question to be answered about grammar?

The question has already been answered and the recapitulation is at post #101. If you have anything to add, we will be happy to know it.

Are you asking something about real and unreal situations? Or about use of conditional sentences in general?

Unreal situations.

Are you asking something about use of conjunctions such as after in condition clauses?

Yes, the whole thread is concerning this.

Or would you just like some comments on your opinion? If so, it's hard to see what exactly your opinion is.

Of course, I'd be happy if you discuss my opinion with me.
If you want to save time, you can read post #101 because it the summary of the whole discussion but if you need more details, you will have to read all the posts written here.

Is what you mean by your "opinion" in fact your analysis of the grammar of a certain sentence? If so, which one?

Yes. Just read post #101 and you will know what I mean.

I hope I have made it easy for you to understand the summary of this very good discussion in just a few words.

I would say 'after' can be used after the if-clause, as the time-clause is not part of the conditional clause.

I agree on this. Thanks for this remark.

I don't think it is the second conditional because 'succeeded' is not the past subjunctive here; that's what Piscean taught me a few hours ago.

No, it is the past subjunctive because it is the second conditional of "if". Look at the main clause and you will know it is the second conditional.

 

[jutfrank]

If the sentence you gave is "If you bore left after you reached the fork, youdid not get lost.", then this sentence is a false conditional and "If" means "If it is true that".

In brief, this sentence means the listener did bear left after he had reached the fork so the speaker is reassuring the listener that he hasn't lost his way.

I can't see in what way you think this is 'false'. If you bore left, then you didn't get lost and if you bore right, you did. Not getting lost depended on the condition of having born left. Whether the person bore left or right is not shown by the grammar, and we can't be sure whether the actual outcome is known, but it's quite likely that the speaker does not know what happened. The condition is 'real'.

And if the sentence is "If you bore left after you reached the fork, you would not have got lost.", then this sentence is the same as the sentence I gave and it implies that the listener did not bear left after he had reached the fork so he got lost.

Yes, that's right, except the speaker would do better to use the past perfect form, If you had born left, to show more clearly that he knows what happened (ie., the person did not bear left). This makes it 'unreal'.

I can't see the relevance of after you reached the fork. This is of no consequence to the point in hand.

 

[Matthew Wai]

If you were anything like me during this past-time experience, you would have been in shock and dismay.

"If you bore left after you reached the fork, you would not have got lost."

'Were' and 'bore' are not past subjunctives, and they refer to real past possibilities rather than irrealis past situations, as do 'would have been' and 'would not have got'.

Any objection?

No, it is the past subjunctive

See below. He was referring to a sentence of the same construction.

It's not a subjunctive in that sentence.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Knd problem here is that "If you bore left after you reached the fork, you did would not have got lost'" is not a very natura; sentence.

Do you mean 'you did not get lost' or 'you would not have got lost' or both?
Leaving aside whether they are natural, are the tenses correct?

 

[man of manners]

Your post 101 is nor clear, man of manners.

Why? Do you consider it wrong? Tell me so that I can improve it.

As you have been told, that is not really relevant to the conditional sentences. By continually bringing this up, you are complicating the issue of the tenses in the conditional sentences.

I think it was already complicated, but after we discussed, it turned out to be more simple.
I am not complicating "the issue of the tenses in the conditional sentences" because I said that "we need the past perfect, which denotes an irrealis past situation, and it doesn't conflict with the past perfect, which denotes a real past situation, used after the conjunction 'after'." so I think I had killed the disagreement.

I'd also like to provide two very good reasons why the two past perfects don't conflict with each other as happens if not used with the third conditional: [the first one is extracted from your responses]

1- The after-clause is irrelevant to the if-clause and what proves this reason is that the sentence can be paraphrased into a simpler sentence that indicates that we can consider the after-clause not part of the if-clause.

Example: If he had met his friend after he [had] finished his lessons, he would have felt most happy. can be simply rewritten as follows: After he had finished his lessons, if he had met his friend, he would have felt most happy.

2-The after-clause can be disregarded because the past perfect used in the after-clause denotes a real past situation while the past perfect used in the if-clause denotes a an irrealis/unreal past situation so they are different and that makes their existence in the same if-clause grammatically acceptable whether in written or spoken English; whether in formal or informal context while this usage is often unacceptable and really rejected/odd in other aspects of grammatical usage.

I hope my opinion is clear now.

It is not a third conditional, and it it does not refer to an irrealis situation.
A I wrote in post 98:
Neither of the verb phrases in red refers to an irrealis situation. The idea of 'your' being similar to the writer is a real possibility. Accepting that possibility, then the writer assumes the probability of 'your' being in shock and dismay.
It is possible for this sentence to be produced even if the writer knows for a fact that 'you' were there; in that situation, the 'if' has a very similar meaning to 'given that'.

If you think that, can you account for the use of "would have been" in the main clause? Isn't that a sufficient indicator of the third conditional? Didn't you get convinced with the other simple sentences that are the same meaning as the original example?

I can't see in what way you think this is 'false'. If you bore left, then you didn't get lost and if you bore right, you did.

If you really can't see in what way this sentence is a false conditional, you can look at the main clause -not the if-clause- and if it you don't find a future tense [or any modal, of course] or a perfect conditional [would have + p.p], then, brother, it is a false conditional and although it indicates something's dependence on the other, it doesn't indicate any prediction or any function of the conditionals. The mere use of "if" is that it conveys/carries the meaning of "if it is true that/given that" and this is truly sufficient to make it a false conditional.
You can read about false/pseudo conditionals to know more and be familiar with what I have said.

Not getting lost depended on the condition of having born left.

I agree and this is what I have said in the last post.

Whether the person bore left or right is not shown by the grammar, and we can't be sure whether the actual outcome is known, but it's quite likely that the speaker does not know what happened. The condition is 'real'.

That's why we need the context, brother. It is the only thing we can know from whether he bore left or did not, but, since the sentence indicates a real past situation, I deduce that the listener told that the speaker that he did bear left so the speaker reassured him that he hadn't lost his way. This is the only context I can think of now.

Yes, that's right, except the speaker would do better to use the past perfect form, If you had born left, to show more clearly that he knows what happened (ie., the person did not bear left). This makes it 'unreal'.

I know speakers would prefer to use the past perfect that's why I said "using the past simple instead of the past perfect, which denotes an irrealis/unreal past situation, in the after-clause is uncommon or less common than using the past perfect.

I can't see the relevance of after you reached the fork. This is of no consequence to the point in hand.

It can be omitted or disregarded, brother because it gives additional information besides indicating a tense/event/time sequence, which enables us to understand some details which might be not worth mentioning.

I hope I have explained my opinion so that you can clearly understand it.

'Were' and 'bore' are not past subjunctives, and they refer to real past possibilities rather than irrealis past situations, as do 'would have been' and 'would not have got'.
Any objection?

yes, I disagree because the example you gave, which is "If you bore left after you reached the fork, you would not have got lost.", does indicate an irrealis past situation as I previously said.

See below. He was referring to a sentence of the same construction.

I know it is not a subjunctive because it doesn't imply any future event/meaning. In the sentence I gave and it other same-style sentence, "were" and "bore" are used less commonly instead of the past perfect versions with the same meaning and the other examples I will provide will prove this.

Knd problem here is that "If you bore left after you reached the fork, you would not have got lost" is not a very natura; sentence.

I agree, Piscean. That's why using the past simple instead of the past perfect is less common when denoting an irrealis/unreal past situation and you can consider it a hyper-correct mistake.

Finally, I'd like to thank you all for your useful posts.

 

[man of manners]

I give up.

LOL
Why?
I only responded to each post given. Do you think I should have ignored their helpful posts?
We still need consult from a great teacher like you.
Can you believe that the post I wrote above took me over two hours to write -including 5-minte breaks- , let alone exerted mental effort?!
There is too much benefit in the last post. You must see it. You will enjoy and I assure you the time you will take to read it is nothing compared to the time it took me to write such long and detailed post.

 

[Matthew Wai]

If you were anything like me during this past-time experience, you would have been in shock and dismay.

"If you bore left after you reached the fork, you would not have got lost."

Why is the first OK but the second unnatural? They are the same in tenses and construction.

 

[emsr2d2]

The second should be "If you had borne left ..., you would not have got lost". It refers to a specific instance - the point at which the person clearly did not bear left caused them to get lost.

In the first, "If you were anything like me" does not mean "If you had been anything like me [at that time] ...", it means "If your character were similar to mine ...", both at the time in question and now. It describes a person's general characteristic, not exactly how they were feeling at the time something else happened.