Really Mixed Conditionals

Status
Not open for further replies.

hanyelblasy

New member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Member Type
Student or Learner
if he was such a good doctor, he should (have to)( its a must to)have diagnosed the illnes, but if he was not such a good doctor he would not have diagnosed the illness.
 

çakırpençe

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Member Type
Student or Learner
For number two I would say, "If he was such a good doctor he would have diagnosed the illness." (presumably, he didn't diagnose the illness.)

The second example makes no sense to me.

I'd think it should be:

"If he were such a good doctor, he would have diagnosed the illness"

Iain

Then, is it "If he was or were a good doctor"?
Which one is more proper?
(((and proper or appropriate :)))) ???
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
In formal language 'were' is preferred. In less formal langauge either can be used. ;-)
 

salas1907

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Member Type
Student or Learner
hi every one! I think it is 'should have 'it cant be' would have done '.... Because we use 'would have done' in type 3 in conditional sentences.should have done in this sentence does not indicate past....
 

laureljohnescu

New member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Member Type
Academic
For number two I would say, "If he was such a good doctor he would have diagnosed the illness." (presumably, he didn't diagnose the illness.)
This doesn't make sense because it makes it sound like he is not a doctor anymore, which is not stated.
 

Rwanbedo

New member
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Member Type
Other
Hello everyone. can anyone show me the difference between ( ton - and tonne ")

thanks a lot
 

RonBee

Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Hello everyone. can anyone show me the difference between ( ton - and tonne ")

They are different spellings of the same word. One is AE ("ton") and the other is BE ("tonne").

~R
 

diana monzon

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Member Type
Student or Learner
The second example makes no sense to me.

I'd think it should be:

"If he were such a good doctor, he would have diagnosed the illness"

Iain


Yeah! I agree with what you say=):-D is he is such a good doctor he would diagnose the illness' it sounds like future and we are saying what he didin't
 

aggelos

Junior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Greek
Home Country
Greece
Current Location
Greece
If he is such a good doctor...: the use of the present tense here is supposed to mean something to this effect: People say he is a very good doctor. Ok, I'll accept that, but why then did he fail to diagnose the illness? If was/were had been used, this part of the meaning would have been lost.
 

Wuisi

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Member Type
Student or Learner
Difficult. I chose that one because the other one refers to past time and would require 'If he were' as a condition-clause; but I would find it hard to give a reason for 'should' in the main clause, perhaps 'expectation', but I'm not really sure.
There's something I must be doing wrong because I can't get access to the other posts in the thread before sending in mine. What's the real procedure, you read them and then you vote or just the other way round?. I say so, because maybe I'm saying things that have already been said and discussed, in that case, sorry and forgive me for being so clumsy. Thanks.
 

Wuisi

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Member Type
Student or Learner
Difficult. I chose that one because the other one refers to past time and would require 'If he were' as a condition-clause; but I would find it hard to give a reason for 'should' in the main clause, perhaps 'expectation', but I'm not really sure.
There's something I must be doing wrong because I can't get access to the other posts in the thread before sending in mine. What's the real procedure, you read them and then you vote or just the other way round?. I say so, because maybe I'm saying things that have already been said and discussed, in that case, sorry and forgive me for being so clumsy. Thanks.

Ok, everything sorted out. Forgive me but I'm as stupid as you can be. I had switched to 'threaded mode' and, being computerlike-illiterate (if there were such an expression) at first sight I didn't realise what difference that made. Now I know. There are other replies I gave while 'under the influence' of the threaded mode and you are likely to find ideas already discussed and commented on, so I DO BEG YOUR PARDON.
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
If you look at the results, it is clear that the majority favour should, but I would not say that your answer is wrong, though in this form of very mixed conditional, should is used much more frequently than would.
 

Mihai_alexandru

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Member Type
Student or Learner
Both sound correct to me, only that the second sentence has a more powerful meaning, suggesting that we have extremely serious doubts whether the presumed doctor is a good one.
 

Jaskin

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2007
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
UK
Hello, I voted for either;
If he is such a good doctor,...he should have diagnosed the illness.
That was widely discussed so I will leave it out.


Now the second one ... I'm was looking for a context in which I could use that conditional.
I went through all the posts and I'm surprised that most people assumed that the doctor examined a patient.
What if he did not examine the patient ??
What if somebody said (discussing that case, patient , illness ) that the patient could have gone to another doctor . (.. but is too late ....)
The person could say ...

If he is such a good doctor, ...he would have diagnosed the illness.


But he did not examined the patient he did not have the opportunity to make a diagnosis.


Cheers .
 
Last edited:

blackdie

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Chinese
Home Country
China
Current Location
China
Wow, what a strange sentence! :shock:
 

JarekSteliga

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
Any comments?
;-)


1.If he is such a good doctor, he should have diagnosed the illness.

2. If he is such a good doctor, he would have diagnosed the illness.


I voted for the 1st sentence.

Here's why:

The first sentence represents for me what I call the present REAL conditional. A textbook example of it could be this sentence: If/when the sun shines, it gets hot. Both condition and result in Present Simple. Now, "should have diagnosed" does not look like Present Simple but feels (at least for me) like a good equivalent of it.

The second sentece violates the pattern of what I call the past UNREAL conditional (suggested by its second or "result" part). If the sentence in question were to conform with the pattern required by this particular conditional, it should look like this:
"If he had been such a good doctor, he would have diagnosed the illness" i.e. Past Perfect in the condition and Present Perfect in the result.

I am aware that "my" presented here nomenclature of conditionals differs from that commonly taught, but agrees with me better because in contrast to the commonly accepted terminology it enables learners to make some logical associations.


Grammatical considerations apart I would like to suggest what my understanding of the first sentence is.

"He has considered himself to be a good doctor, or has been considered by other people to be a good doctor, but the fact that he has not diagnosed the illness rather puts ( brings, calls) his reputed (alleged, asserted) qualifications into question"
 
Last edited:

Esredux

VIP Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
My first idea was ‘either of them are possible but with clearly different meaning’.
After having gone through all the posts, I would add ‘with a subtle difference’.



I wonder if it would be correct to put it like this:
The first part in both sentences questions the doctor’s qualification now referring to some past situation when he failed to notice the illness. With ‘should’ it has a bit more feeling (criticism, anger, sarcasm, etc) because of the modality, that is ‘he failed to do what was considered right’. ‘Would’ gives a more general background of unreal/uncertain situation and the cause for not having been able to diagnose the illness remains unknown: it might have been due to the professional carelessness, or because there was no illness at all.


What would you say? :oops:
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Should is the more common form and might be more critical, but in both cases the doctor's failure to diagnose the illness casts doubt over his reputation- along the lines of JarekSteliga's interpretation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top