conditional 2- hard to tell tense

Status
Not open for further replies.

keannu

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
Sometimes, I find some conditional 2's setences make it hard to recognize its tense
such as
"If there were a 3-meter tall person, he would hit the Guinness Book of Records"
Does this mean the improbablity of there being such a person in the present or in the general time?
I found the following content of some grammar material, and general time seems to mean beyond (past+present+future), so does conditional 2 include general time,
counter-factual present, and improbable future? Whatever the term is for conditional2 or hypothetical conditional, I'd like to know if general time applies to this conditional. Or don't I have to care about this?

==========================================
Past tense for 'general' time
15. If you were as poor as I am, you’d feel differently.
16. I wish I had a memory like yours.
==========================================
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
There isn't one now- it has no reference to the future for me, and refers to an imaginary present situation. That doesn't mean that this could never refer to the unlikely future, but context would make things clear. Logic tells us that there has been no past case or the slot in the Guinness Book of Records would have been taken and the requirement would be for more than three metres. All the person is trying to tell you is that there isn't anyone who meets the requirements today.

You are looking at single sentences for a definitive answer to things they cannot provide. We construct meaning in context and not in single sentences in isolation. Grammar doesn't provide us with everything- it gives us pointers and the context will make things clearer.
 

keannu

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
There isn't one now- it has no reference to the future for me, and refers to an imaginary present situation. That doesn't mean that this could never refer to the unlikely future, but context would make things clear. Logic tells us that there has been no past case or the slot in the Guinness Book of Records would have been taken and the requirement would be for more than three metres. All the person is trying to tell you is that there isn't anyone who meets the requirements today.

You are looking at single sentences for a definitive answer to things they cannot provide. We construct meaning in context and not in single sentences in isolation. Grammar doesn't provide us with everything- it gives us pointers and the context will make things clearer.

You are right, but a lot of grammar materials only provide "counterfactual present" and "hypothetical future" for conditional 2 using past tense. I know context is vital, but at least there should be some definition providing the whole coverage of tenses used in conditional 2 , but so far I've found some missing parts of existing definitions.
If you just let me know the broad and whole range of definition, then it would be much helpful. So far I've found the definition for conditional 2 myself. I'd like to know if it's correct.

* present
1) counterfactual : I don't have a car. If I had a car, I would travel to New York.
2) unlikely: If there were a 3-meter tall person in Korea now, I would report him to the Gunness Record Association.(time specified)

* future - hypothetical(unlikely) - as counterfactual is impossible for anything that has't happened yet in the future
If Halley's comet collided with the earth tomoroow, It would be tragic.

* general time
1)counterfactual : If there were no hunger in Africa, they would be better off.(past+present+future)
2)unlikely :If there were a 3-meter tall person in the world, I would report him to the Gunness Record Association(time not specified)

The thing is I really need this kind of separation to understand conditional 2 more comprehensively and to explain better to my students. I'm not just too much tenacious.
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
* present
1) counterfactual : I don't have a car. If I had a car, I would travel to New York.
2) unlikely: If there were a 3-meter tall person in Korea now, I would report him to the Gunness Record Association.(time specified)

How is the second unlikely? It's counter-factual IMO. You can argue that there's a possibility of the person being mistaken, but they don't think they are- they do not think that there's a person this tall in Korea and nothing in the grammar suggests that they do. Specifying the time doesn't make it unlikely about now, but it does allow for future changes.

* general time
1)counterfactual : If there were no hunger in Africa, they would be better off.(past+present+future)
2)unlikely :If there were a 3-meter tall person in the world, I would report him to the Gunness Record Association(time not specified)

Again, this is not a natural distinction IMO- it's not unlikely to the speaker. If it refers to the future, it's unlikely, but if it refers to the present/general time it's counter-factual. The person does not know every human being on earth, but they do feel that they have sufficient knowledge to state as a fact that there are no three-metre tall humans alive today.
 
Last edited:

keannu

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
How is the second unlikely? It's counter-factual IMO. You can argue that there's a possibility of the person being mistaken, but they don't think they are- they do not think that there's a person this tall in Korea and nothing in the grammar suggests that they do. Specifying the time doesn't make it unlikely about now, but it does allow for future changes.



Again, this is not a natural distinction IMO- it's not unlikely to the speaker. If it refers to the future, it's unlikely, but if it refers to the present/general time it's counter-factual. The person does not know every human being on earth, but they do feel that they have sufficient knowledge to state as a fact that there are no three-metre tall humans alive today.


Then, you mean they never make unlikely conditional for the present or general time? Then do they always say for possible things as "If subject is(or does)..."? of conditional1 in the present or general time? I don't know, just confirm to me, but I seem to have seen also unlikely ones in the present, but maybe I'm mistaken, I just want to learn.
 

Frank Antonson

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I have not read this entire thread. But I immediately thought of a clear use of the past with this thought.
"If there were a 3-meter tall person, he would hit the Guinness Book of Records

"If there had been a 3-meter tall person, he would have hit the Guinness Book of Records"

I realize that that is using a compound tense, but it is clearly in the past.
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Then, you mean they never make unlikely conditional for the present or general time? Then do they always say for possible things as "If subject is(or does)..."? of conditional1 in the present or general time? I don't know, just confirm to me, but I seem to have seen also unlikely ones in the present, but maybe I'm mistaken, I just want to learn.

I don't like to say never because it is hard to be absolute, but if I weren't sure whether a person of this height existed, I would say If there is a person who's three meters tall... The basic idea of the second conditional for the present/general is that it is trying to show that it is counter-factual.
 

keannu

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
I don't like to say never because it is hard to be absolute, but if I weren't sure whether a person of this height existed, I would say If there is a person who's three meters tall... The basic idea of the second conditional for the present/general is that it is trying to show that it is counter-factual.

Okay, I'm leaning toward there being no unlikely in the present/general, but the reason why I'm asking you is whenever I see conditional 2, some of them are hard to be classified to either present or future. For example, when I asked Raymott the other day why "I got second prize" is used instead of "the second prize", explaining the reson, he quoted like the following.

...In fact, if prizes were being handed out all day for various things, you could win "first prize" in the fifth prize awarded.....

He seems to have said this in terms of the present counterf-factual, but he didn't verify that such prize distribution can never happen, so he might have said it's a remote possibility in general time just imagining a general-time not future hypothetical situation. I'ts just my feeling, I think I'm mistaken. This along with many other examples always confuse me, I'm sorry I'm not trying to harrass you for this issue, but I'm serious.


 

Frank Antonson

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
If it's any comfort, I would say that subjunctives and conditionals are SO COOL.

In Portuguese there is a clear future subjunctive, which, once it is acquired is very useful.

One of the reasons that I continue to be a fan of English speakers studying German is because (that?) the conditional and subjunctive seem to come so easy and natural in German.

I find that some of the constructions that I want to use in German -- perhaps because of my knowledge of Portuguese -- are too archaic now to be anything but weird. But I suspect that they were once there.

I wonder... On this forum are there any VERY skilled linguists who know the "cutting edge" of research on such matters?

Frank
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Keannu, you have been told several times in other threads, that the so-called second conditional can be used for a counterfactual present/general time or a hypothetical future. You have been told in this thread that is not used for an unlikely present.

If somebody says to me, "I think that John is in France", and I reply,"I'd be very surprised if he were(/was) in France", I choose that form to express that I do not believe that he is France. We may find out that I am wrong, but that is irrelevant. If there is any idea in my mind that he is in France, then I say, "If he is in France, ...". If I want to express the idea that I consider this to be a remote possibility, then I will use different words, such as: "In the (highly) unlikely event that he is in France, ..."
 

keannu

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
Keannu, you have been told several times in other threads, that the so-called second conditional can be used for a counterfactual present/general time or a hypothetical future. You have been told in this thread that is not used for an unlikely present.

If somebody says to me, "I think that John is in France", and I reply,"I'd be very surprised if he were(/was) in France", I choose that form to express that I do not believe that he is France. We may find out that I am wrong, but that is irrelevant. If there is any idea in my mind that he is in France, then I say, "If he is in France, ...". If I want to express the idea that I consider this to be a remote possibility, then I will use different words, such as: "In the (highly) unlikely event that he is in France, ..."

Sorry to have troubled you so much. When I was a mere student learning conditionals, I didn't give them a serious thought, but after becoming a tutor, I came to think very seriously about even delicate parts of them.

There has been some doubt in my mind about the percentage of probability in choosing so-called conditional1(predictive) or so-called condition 2(counterfactual or hypothetical), which may seem stupid to you. Now, I realize even counter-factual does depend on your attitude, and not depending on the percentage of probability(even if you have 5% improbability and it's strong, it can lead to conditional2, and you can't measure it by number), you use either conditional2 by any negative thoughts, and conditional 1 by any positive thoughts.

Sorry, I won't ask you about this any more, thank you so much!!!
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
He seems to have said this in terms of the present counterf-factual, but he didn't verify that such prize distribution can never happen, so he might have said it's a remote possibility in general time just imagining a general-time not future hypothetical situation.

In this example, I would use the second conditional to show a hypothetical situation- it's not to do with whether there are or are not such prize distributions- this is shown by the use of could rather than would. It's not looking at the facts of prize distribution, but creating an imaginary situation for the purposes of generating a possible language form.
 

keannu

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
In this example, I would use the second conditional to show a hypothetical situation- it's not to do with whether there are or are not such prize distributions- this is shown by the use of could rather than would. It's not looking at the facts of prize distribution, but creating an imaginary situation for the purposes of generating a possible language form.

I'm sorry, I tried to stop asking, but your explanation makes me ask again. Then, is it in the future condition or time in general? I think the latter.
I'm not contradicting there being only counter-factual for the present and hypothetical for the future, but as I said, there seem to be numerous cases for me to judge hard.
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
It's just an imaginary situation- there's no element of time here. I would say this sentence without any consideration of the time- the only thing I would use the conditional there to mark is the theoretical nature of the situation I am describing. I think it might help if the definition of general time included timeless or at any time, rather than sticking to past/present/future.

When we say that the earth goes round the sun, it is true that it was going round in the past, is going round now and will continue to go round in the future, as far as we know. However, when we say it, are we really thinking about time? Time is a measure that helps prove the fact, but we're probably thinking more about the fact than the time. General time is often a sort of timelessness. Time may influence our choice of tense and form, but it only one factor.

With the example of the prizes, the factor that governs the choice is the unreal nature of the situation- the choice moves into the realm of the imaginary and it does not locate it at any time IMO. The imaginary can be located in time past, present or future, but it can also be located outside of considerations of time. You can call the prizes example general time if you like, but unless you factor in the concept of timelessness, maybe eternity, to your definition of general time, then I think the picture will be incomplete. Conditionals allow us to play tricks with time and reality- a linguistic time machine that can rewrite the past and shape the future or change the present.

I would agree that it is time in general, but my view of time in general here includes the timeless.
 

keannu

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
It's just an imaginary situation- there's no element of time here. I would say this sentence without any consideration of the time- the only thing I would use the conditional there to mark is the theoretical nature of the situation I am describing. I think it might help if the definition of general time included timeless or at any time, rather than sticking to past/present/future.

When we say that the earth goes round the sun, it is true that it was going round in the past, is going round now and will continue to go round in the future, as far as we know. However, when we say it, are we really thinking about time? Time is a measure that helps prove the fact, but we're probably thinking more about the fact than the time. General time is often a sort of timelessness. Time may influence our choice of tense and form, but it only one factor.

With the example of the prizes, the factor that governs the choice is the unreal nature of the situation- the choice moves into the realm of the imaginary and it does not locate it at any time IMO. The imaginary can be located in time past, present or future, but it can also be located outside of considerations of time. You can call the prizes example general time if you like, but unless you factor in the concept of timelessness, maybe eternity, to your definition of general time, then I think the picture will be incomplete. Conditionals allow us to play tricks with time and reality- a linguistic time machine that can rewrite the past and shape the future or change the present.

I would agree that it is time in general, but my view of time in general here includes the timeless.

That's why I said conditional 2 can't be restricted to only "counter-factual present" and "unlikely(hypothetical) future", it also includes timeless, beyond time, general time, whatever you call, hypothetical ones. I told you I've been too much confused about this kind of conditionals, so I don't know why so many grammar materials restrict it to only 2 cases.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I don't know why so many grammar materials restrict it to only 2 cases.
Because the word 'present' is often loosely used for 'general time'. It may not be the ideal word, but it is generally understood. When we say "If you were a woman, you'd understand", nobody takes this to mean 'If you were a woman at this present moment of speaking and at no other moment". When we want to speak of the present moment, we use a progressive form:
"If you were doing your homework now, your father wouldn't be so angry."
 

keannu

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
Because the word 'present' is often loosely used for 'general time'. It may not be the ideal word, but it is generally understood. When we say "If you were a woman, you'd understand", nobody takes this to mean 'If you were a woman at this present moment of speaking and at no other moment". When we want to speak of the present moment, we use a progressive form:
"If you were doing your homework now, your father wouldn't be so angry."

I'm sorry, master, I understand what you mean, even in Korean or in any other languages in the world, the present can mean wide range of time, beyond time, timelss tense. Whenever I explain to my students that the present in both Korean and English can mean general time, they understand so easily. It's because human beings share the same sense of time.
But my last question was that the hypothetical for the future can be also exteded to timeless, general time and this kind of conditionals have always made me confused, unable to explain easily to my students. It's because all I could depend on was grammar books' definitions that never mention general time. Now I feel really satisfied.
So can I conclude my humble opinion?
conditional2 : 1.Counterfactual(present, often general time) 2.Hypothetical( future or general time(timeless, beyond time, whatever))
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
So can I conclude my humble opinion?
conditional2 : 1.Counterfactual(present, often general time) 2.Hypothetical( future or general time(timeless, beyond time, whatever))
Not really. If it's really essential to have the whole thing summarised in two lines, then I'd go for something like:

conditional 2 : 1.Counterfactual (present [STRIKE], often[/STRIKE] / general time) 2.Hypothetical (future [STRIKE]or general[/STRIKE] time [STRIKE](timeless, beyond time, whatever))[/STRIKE]

As I have pointed out elsewhere*, "[FONT=&quot]I believe that many of the problems with conditionals are caused by grammar and course books which attempt to make the system digestible for learner by presenting an over-simplified system cut up into little chunks. The result of this is that learners feel that they never get to the bottom of a system that appears to become ever more complex and throw up an increasing number of exceptions."

*http://www.gramorak.com/Articles/Conditionals.pdf

[/FONT]
 

keannu

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
Not really. If it's really essential to have the whole thing summarised in two lines, then I'd go for something like:

conditional 2 : 1.Counterfactual (present [STRIKE], often[/STRIKE] / general time) 2.Hypothetical (future [STRIKE]or general[/STRIKE] time [STRIKE](timeless, beyond time, whatever))[/STRIKE]

As I have pointed out elsewhere*, "[FONT=&quot]I believe that many of the problems with conditionals are caused by grammar and course books which attempt to make the system digestible for learner by presenting an over-simplified system cut up into little chunks. The result of this is that learners feel that they never get to the bottom of a system that appears to become ever more complex and throw up an increasing number of exceptions."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]*http://www.gramorak.com/Articles/Conditionals.pdf[/FONT]
You mean this one belongs to counterfactual present/general time, not hypothetical future? Maybe he mentioned it doesn't happen generally.
But Tdol said it's a hypothetical conditional across all times. If it's not true, I can't help but conclude this is something that can not happen in the present or in general time from the speaker's point of view.

...In fact, if prizes were being handed out all day for various things, you could win "first prize" in the fifth prize awarded.....
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
You mean this one belongs to counterfactual present/general time, not hypothetical future? Maybe he mentioned it doesn't happen generally.

...In fact, if prizes were being handed out all day for various things, you could win "first prize" in the fifth prize awarded.....
keannu, how often do we say, "Context is important"? As Tdol wrote earlier in this thread (my emphasis added):

You are looking at single sentences for a definitive answer to things they cannot provide. We construct meaning in context and not in single sentences in isolation.
Grammar doesn't provide us with everything- it gives us pointers and the context will make things clearer.

Cut out that last sentence and stick it to the top of your computer screen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top