if conditional

[fadysandy]

She isn't an architect if she doesn't go to university.
Is it grammatically correct?
Best regards.

 

[bhaisahab]

It doesn't make sense.

 

[fadysandy]

should it be written:
She won't be an architect if she doesn't go to university.

 

[bhaisahab]

Should it be written: "She won't be an architect if she doesn't go to university"?

That's better. I suggest "become" rather than "be", though.

 

[Roman55]

I am not a teacher.

"She isn't an architect if she didn't go to university", is probably true too.

 

[Matthew Wai]

if she didn't go to university

Is it the second conditional?

 

[Roman55]

I am not a teacher.

I might have to start plagiarizing Barb_D because this whole 1st, 2nd, 3rd conditional business really isn't my area of expertise.

But from what I do know about the 2nd conditional I'd say, no. That would probably be the case with, "She wouldn't be an architect if she didn't go to university."

 

[Matthew Wai]

"If she didn't go to university" should mean that she does go to university at present.
"She wouldn't be an architect if she had not gone to university" is the third conditional.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Not a teacher.

 

[Roman55]

I am not a teacher.

I think you're right about the 3rd conditional but you're wrong when you say, "If she didn't go to university should mean that she does go to university at present."

Either she did or didn't go to university in the past. It tells us nothing about what she's doing now.

 

[Matthew Wai]

In a second conditional clause, the past subjunctive refers to an unreal situation at present, that's why I think that "lf she didn't go to university" should mean that she does go to university at present.

I am not a teacher, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Roman55]

I am not a teacher.

Matthew, I said/wrote it. I know what I meant, and I didn't start the sentence with a hypothetical proposition of, "lf she didn't go to university..."

I stated the fact that, "She isn't an architect if she didn't go to university". It was actually intended as a vaguely humorous variation on the original theme, but has now become the main subject of the thread.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Roman, please forgive me for my being argumentative again.

"She won't be an architect if she doesn't go to university"─ the first conditional which refers to the present.
"She won't be an architect if she didn't go to university"─ the second conditional which refers to the present.
"She wouldn't be an architect if she hadn't gone to university"─ the third conditional which refers to the past.

I am not a teacher, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Raymott]

"She won't/can't be an architect if she doesn't go to university"─ the first conditional which refers to the present. (future)
"She wouldn't/couldn't be an architect if she didn't go to university"─ the second conditional which refers to the present.
"She wouldn't/couldn't have been an architect if she hadn't gone to university"─ the third conditional which refers to the past.

I think you'll find that those corrections are closer to the numbered conditionals. Somehow that sentence (the concept) doesn't fit well with numbered condtionals.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I know the correct third conditional should be "wouldn't have been". But if I mean she wouldn't be an architect now, may I say "She wouldn't be an architect if she hadn't gone to university"?

 

[Raymott]

Yes, you can. You should say what you mean, and not worry about whether it has a number - as far as I'm concerned. The numbering system might be useful for beginners in getting the sequence of tenses right, but once you understand what you're trying to say, the number system loses most of its value.

 

[Matthew Wai]

1. "She wouldn't be so busy if she didn't go to university" ── the correct second conditional.
2. "She won't be an architect if she didn't go to university" ── an exception as described in some grammar sites.

Similarly, "wouldn't be so busy" refers to the present and "won't be an architect" refers to the future, are they correct?

"She isn't an architect if she didn't go to university"

In terms of conditional sentences, is it wrong?

 

[Raymott]

Yes, 1. refers to the present.
2. could refer to the future. It could also refer to the present if "She won't be an architect" is a supposition, as in "She can't be an architect (now) if she hasn't been to university".
Dialogue:
A: "Maybe she's an architect."
B: "No she wouldn't/couldn't/won't/can't be an architect. She didn't go to university."
This all assumes that you have to go to university to be an architect.
The quote from Roman means roughly the same thing.
They are all slightly different expressions of the logical proposition: If (no university), then (not an architect).