I don't know whether Tom turned left or right. If he bore right after he reached ...

[Matthew Wai]

I am starting this thread because this long thread is confusing me.

Assuming I don't know whether Tom turned left or right and whether he arrived or got lost, can I say the following?

1. 'If he bore left after he reached the fork, he got lost.'
2. 'If he bore right after he reached the fork, he would have arrived.'

In this post, emsr2d2 told me to use 'If he had borne', but then it denotes that I actually know whether he turned left or not and whether he arrived or not when I actually don't.

 

[man of manners]

Assuming I don't know whether Tom turned left or right and whether he arrived or got lost, can I say the following?
1. 'If he bore left after he reached the fork, he got lost.'
2. 'If he bore right after he reached the fork, he would have arrived.'

Not a teacher

No, you can say only the first one because it constitutes one possible event while there are two.
If he bore left [after he reached the fork], he got lost AND If he bore right [after he reached the fork], he did not get lost.
The second sentence, being a third conditional, implies one possible fact that he neither bore right nor arrived.

 

[Matthew Wai]

The second sentence is not intended to be a third conditional because whether he turned right and arrived is unknown.

Is it correct to use that sentence? If not, how can I say it correctly?

 

[Matthew Wai]

The 'would have' construction expresses a degree of certainty.

Do you mean he would have certainly arrived if he bore right at that time or the speaker is certain that he turned right?

 

[man of manners]

Your second sentence is possible (though I'd use 'turned' rather than 'bore'. The 'would have' construction expresses a degree of certainty.

Not a teacher

If you see the sentence from this perspective, then I agree with you. But there is also another prospective I see this sentence from.

 

[man of manners]

Third conditional sentences are about a past time irrealis situation. We do not use the past simple for past-time irrealis situations

I know this for sure and that's what increasing doubt inside me because I also agree with you about the wrongness of using the past simple for past-time irrealis situations. But I have some examples found on the internet and I really want to know your logical explanation for using the past simple in the if-clause.
Visit my original post and tell me your view point.

 

[GoesStation]

Visit my original post and tell me your view point.

May I suggest that you cast your request as a request, not as a demand? You're more likely to get the result you want.

 

[man of manners]

May I suggest that you cast your request as a request, not as a demand? You're more likely to get the result you want.

I have no control over anyone and we all know that so I am really doing what you have said and I do request politely but my English doesn't really helping me to express my gratitude and when I tried to thank you in a post, It was removed!

 

[GoesStation]

Visit my original post and tell me your view point.

I have no control over anyone and we all know that so I am really doing what you have said and I do request politely but my English doesn't really helping me to express my gratitude and when I tried to thank you in a post, It was removed!

Clicking "Thank" is usually thanks enough. I was trying to guide you towards adding a "please" to the request you made in the first quote above.

 

[man of manners]

Clicking "Thank" is usually thanks enough. I was trying to guide you towards adding a "please" to the request you made in the first quote above.

Sorry for not adding "please" to the request but I assure you I didn't mean disrespect or impoliteness or anything that you mentioned.

 

[GoesStation]

Sorry for not adding "please" to the request but I assure you I didn't mean disrespect or impoliteness or anything that you mentioned.

I mentioned neither disrespect nor impoliteness. I merely encouraged you to cast the request as a request, not a demand. Prefacing it with "please" is an easy way to do so.

 

[Barb_D]

As you all know, conditionals are not my areas of expertise.

If you know from past experience that 100% of the people who turn left get lost and 100% of the people who turn right arrive safely,
AND
You do not know whether he turned right or left...

... wouldn't you say "If he turned left, he got lost and if turned right, he arrived"?

 

[Matthew Wai]

"If he turned left, he got lost and if turned right, he arrived"

If I have understood correctly, 'turned' is not a past subjunctive, which refers to the present/future, because the main clauses refer to the past. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Visit my original post and tell me your view point.

I think both Piscean and I have already done so.

 

[jutfrank]

In short -- yes.

 

[man of manners]

I think both Piscean and I have already done so.

I meant post #134 in the original thread.
There is another sentence that may make you change your mind.

 

[Matthew Wai]

'Will + perfect tense' does not refer to the future in 'If he has turned right, he will have arrived'. Is that correct?

The teacher in this post used 'will have gone' with 'a year ago'.