[Grammar] if would, then would

[enthink]

Wikipedia Founder, Jimmy Wales, should be a native English speaker. He wrote the following sentence:

If all of Wikipedia's 400 million users would donate $1 each, we would have 20 times the amount of money we need.

Why is would used in the if clause as well as in the main clause? All English textbooks tell us to use past simple tense in the if clause. What's the difference here?

Thanks,

 

[Nightmare85]

***Neither a teacher nor a native speaker.***

I guess it's possible but not fully correct.
So it should be:
If all of Wikipedia's 400 million users donated $1 each, we would have 20 times the amount of money we need.
(In my opinion.)

But let's see what the others will say...

P.S: I believe TheParser replied to a similar question once.

Cheers!

 

[e2e4]

/A learner/

Wikipedia Founder, Jimmy Wales, should be a native English speaker. He wrote the following sentence:

If all of Wikipedia's 400 million users would donate $1 each, we would have 20 times the amount of money we need.

Why is would used in the if clause as well as in the main clause? All English textbooks tell us to use past simple tense in the if clause. What's the difference here?

Thanks,

He said sentence that way because he likes to ask the users very politely to donate as much as they want to or can. The core is that he wanted to say how useful the site is.
The suggested past subjunctive in the form of the simple past would work grammatically but it could be taken by the users as a founders' huff.

 

[birdeen's call]

I guess it's possible but not fully correct.

It's absolutely correct. It might become easier to understand if you would think of the "would" in the if-clause as of the past form of "will" meaning "choose/have the willingness to".

 

[Nightmare85]

What do you mean? :-|
If all of Wikipedia's 400 million users will donate $1 each, we will have 20 times the amount of money we need.
If all of Wikipedia's 400 million users would donate $1 each, we would have 20 times the amount of money we need.
If all of Wikipedia's 400 million users donate $1 each, we will have 20 times the amount of money we need.
If all of Wikipedia's 400 million users donated $1 each, we would have 20 times the amount of money we need.

Are all those sentences grammatically correct?
I'm not sure if I understood you...

Cheers!

 

[birdeen's call]

Yes, they're all grammatically correct.

 

[bhaisahab]

What do you mean? :-|
If all of Wikipedia's 400 million users will donate $1 each, we will have 20 times the amount of money we need.
If all of Wikipedia's 400 million users would donate $1 each, we would have 20 times the amount of money we need.
If all of Wikipedia's 400 million users donate $1 each, we will have 20 times the amount of money we need.
If all of Wikipedia's 400 million users donated $1 each, we would have 20 times the amount of money we need.

Are all those sentences grammatically correct?
I'm not sure if I understood you...

Cheers!

Yes, they are all correct. Take the sentence with "would donate" and change it to "were willing to". That's what it means.

 

[enthink]

Thanks. So it's a polite form, probably formal?

 

[bhaisahab]

Thanks. So it's a polite form, probably formal?

Polite, yes, not particularly formal.

 

[enthink]

not particularly formal.

What do you mean by that? Would two young people use it normally in an informal conversation they are having privately? Or would they sound unnaturally formal?

 

[enthink]

Now when I think about it, I don't agree that the Wikipedia founder meant to say "if they were willing to donate". He meant to say "if they donated". The meaning of the whole sentence is different from "be willing to". It refers to action, while the other refers to a state of readiness to do the action. So I continue to be confused...

 

[birdeen's call]

What do you mean by that? Would two young people use it normally in an informal conversation they are having privately? Or would they sound unnaturally formal?

It's difficult to imagine anybody (not only young people) using this whole sentence in a private conversation... Do you mean just "if you will" or "if you would"?

 

[bhaisahab]

Now when I think about it, I don't agree that the Wikipedia founder meant to say "if they were willing to donate". He meant to say "if they donated". The meaning of the whole sentence is different. So I continue to be confused...

I am not in his head, so I don't know absolutely what he meant to say. Based on the evidence, as a native speaker, I stick by my interpretation.

 

[birdeen's call]

Now when I think about it, I don't agree that the Wikipedia founder meant to say "if they were willing to donate". He meant to say "if they donated". The meaning of the whole sentence is different from "be willing to". It refers to action, while the other refers to a state of readiness to do the action. So I continue to be confused...

If you don't like "were willing to", you may prefer to see "chose" in its place.

PS: And I agree with Bhai. We have no clue about what he wanted to say apart from what he actually said.

 

[e2e4]

/A learner/

Thanks. So it's a polite form, probably formal?

It is still my opinion; it is a polite form. Works for both variants of English (formal and informal).

In addition, "would donate" here is the past subjunctive in the form of the modal would, which we mostly use in the past, plus the bare infinitive of the main verb. Note that this condition (would donate) isn't fulfilled. It is used for referring to an unreal past this time.
And, finally, technically, this is the second conditional.:hi:

 

[5jj]

Slight confusion here:

"would donate" here is the past subjunctive (1) in the form of the modal would, which we mostly use in the past (2), plus the bare infinitive of the main verb. Note that this condition (would donate) isn't fulfilled (3). It is used for referring to an unreal past this time(4) [...] this is the second conditional..

1. Would + bare infinitive is not generally regarded as a subjunctive form.
2. The modal would is not 'mostly used in the past'. (see below)
3. This condition hasn't been fulfilled yet, but there is a possibility of its fulfilment.
4. In this sentence it refers to a future time. The possibility of its fulfilment may be considered not very likely, but it exists. (see below)

Would

Would is sometimes used as a past form of will:
He said that he would take me to the airport.
Luke would never go to bed without his teddy bear.

Would is sometimes used as a 'distanced' form of will to show politeness [a] or to indicate that something is less likely (than if will had been used) or unreal [c]:
a. Would you pass me the salt, please?
b. He would be very upset if she didn't arrive tomorrow.
c. If I had drunk less last night, I wouldn't feel so sick now.

The second condition is used for a future hypothetical sutuation that is considered less likely (b above), or for a counterfactual present situation (c above).

 

[e2e4]

Slight confusion here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by e2e4
"would donate" here is the past subjunctive (1) in the form of the modal would, which we mostly use in the past (2), plus the bare infinitive of the main verb. Note that this condition (would donate) isn't fulfilled (3). It is used for referring to an unreal past this time(4) [...] this is the second conditional..



1. Would + bare infinitive is not generally regarded as a subjunctive form.
2. The modal would is not 'mostly used in the past'. (see below)
3. This condition hasn't been fulfilled yet, but there is a possibility of its fulfillment.
4. In this sentence it refers to a future time. The possibility of its fulfillment may be considered not very likely, but it exists. (see below)

1. read my sentence carefully and you will see that I said
"would donate" here is the past subjunctive (not in general)
If it is not the past subjunctive here please let me know what it could be here. Thanks
2. I still think it is. And as I said it is here used to refer to an unreal past this time. Because of that it is the subjunctive.Also I don't like to hear "would" is the past form of "will". Every modal is independent one to another. If not they wouldn't be modals. (I see them this way)
3. Possibility or not it is not fulfilled and it will not be fulfilled
4. Not likely to happen at all.

 

[5jj]

3. This condition hasn't been fulfilled yet, but there is a possibility of its fulfilment. You are free to use American spelling if you wish. Please do not change my (correct) British spelling.

1. read my sentence carefully and you will see that I said "would donate" here is the past subjunctive (not in general). If it is not the past subjunctive here please let me know what it could be here.
'Would donate' is generally regarded as simply the use of a modal verb, here and elsewhere.

2. I still think it is [used mostly in the past].
Fine. I don't agree, but we would need to go to a corpus to confirm.

And as I said it is here used to refer to an unreal past this time.
Jimmy Wales is clearly not referring to past time when he says,"If all of Wikipedia's 400 million users would donate $1 each, we would have 20 times the amount of money we need".

Also I don't like to hear "would" is the past form of "will".
Whether you like it or not, 'would' is used in place of 'will' when other verbs use a past tense forms. To say, as I did, "'Would' is sometimes used as a past form of 'will'" is an accurate presentation of the facts.

Every modal is independent one to another. Well, no. There is a close connection between 'will' and 'would', as there is between 'can' and 'could' and 'may' and 'might' and (to lesser extent) 'shall' and 'should'.

If not they wouldn't be modals. Not true.

5

 

[e2e4]

1. I didn't know "fulfilment" is correct. Thanks for let me know.:fadein: (There is a lot of British spelling of similar words with two l .

3. I agree. Hard to say actually.

I didn't say Jimmy Wales' sentence referred to past. I said that "would donate" pointed to unreal past.

Whether you like it or not, 'would' is used in place of 'will' when other verbs use a past tense forms.
It is just one way of seeing the grammar, especially modals.
One can also say that "will" is used instead of "would" when "other" verbs use non past tense forms.

There is a close connection between 'will' and 'would', as there is between 'can' and 'could' and 'may' and 'might' and (to lesser extent) 'shall' and 'should'.

I might go to Edinburgh to learn English.
I may go to Edinburgh to learn English.

Firstly, please let me know the meaning of these two sentences. What is the difference in meaning?
Secondly, please let me know from what it is possible to be concluded that the might is the past form of the may in the two sentences above.

Thanks

:scatter:

 

[birdeen's call]

e2e4, why won't you start a new thread? The questions you have asked have very little to do with the original one.