Page 19 of 19 First ... 15 16 17 18 19
Results 181 to 187 of 187
  1. Raymott's Avatar
    VIP Member
    Academic
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 25,466
    #181

    Re: a very confusing sentence concerning the third conditional of "if"

    "If variation developed after Dacia and Dalmatia had been effectively cut off from linguistic innovations from the west, these areas would never have picked it up."

    "If A happened after B had been removed, C would never have noticed." ->
    "If A happened, C would never have noticed."

    If you want an opinion about the structure, I would write "If A had happened / If variation had developed ..."
    "If variation had developed, ... these areas would never have picked it up."
    The past perfect is needed here, in my opinion, and the 'after' clause has no effect on that. (As I explained a few weeks ago, I think).

    Sorry if I've missed the point. Could you let us know whether this is your question - about whether it should be 'developed' or 'had developed'? If it is, then the answers are going to be the same no matter how many sentences you find on the web. Isn't this the same structure you were asking about at the beginning - the one that was answered in posts #2 and #3?

    PS: You wrote: "
    I believe formal contexts are void of such mistakes." This is a seriously erroneous belief, and the probable cause of why you haven't received a satisfactory response yet. People make mistakes. If you persist in believing that they don't, then no reply here will be satisfactory, and it's all a waste of time.

    Last edited by Raymott; 01-Aug-2016 at 09:39.

  2. Matthew Wai's Avatar
    VIP Member
    Interested in Language
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Chinese
      • Home Country:
      • China
      • Current Location:
      • Hong Kong

    • Join Date: Nov 2013
    • Posts: 8,326
    #182

    Re: a very confusing sentence concerning the third conditional of "if"

    Quote Originally Posted by man of manners View Post
    ... it would be a third conditional.

    ... the past simple 'developed' was correct ...

    If you have any objection to any thing I said, please, let me know.
    The past simple can't be correct if it is a third conditional; that's my objection.
    I am not a teacher.

  3. Matthew Wai's Avatar
    VIP Member
    Interested in Language
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Chinese
      • Home Country:
      • China
      • Current Location:
      • Hong Kong

    • Join Date: Nov 2013
    • Posts: 8,326
    #183

    Re: a very confusing sentence concerning the third conditional of "if"

    Quote Originally Posted by jutfrank View Post
    One more time; the passage says this:

    Fact: Variation did not develop in Dacia and Dalmatia
    Quote Originally Posted by jutfrank View Post
    The writer is saying that he doesn't know whether variation happened before or after D and D were effectively cut off.
    What the passage says seems to have contradicted what the writer is saying.
    I am not a teacher.

  4. man of manners's Avatar
    Member
    Interested in Language
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Arabic
      • Home Country:
      • Egypt
      • Current Location:
      • Egypt

    • Join Date: Jul 2016
    • Posts: 354
    #184

    Re: a very confusing sentence concerning the third conditional of "if"

    Quote Originally Posted by jutfrank View Post
    Fact: Variation did not develop in Dacia and Dalmatia, as it did in other areas.
    I agree on this as this is what the writer said.
    Quote Originally Posted by jutfrank View Post
    Hypothesis: Dacia and Dalmatia had already been cut off (from linguistic innovations from the west) at the time that the variation happened. If this hypothesis is correct, then this explains why variation did not develop there (i.e. why D and D did not 'pick up' the variation.)
    Do you agree that "they would never have picked it up" means "they did pick it up" as we all know?
    Example to show this point: If he had succeeded, he would not have been sad. ........> This means he did not succeed so he was sad.
    Also this somewhat is similar to my post #164. So, please, read it and tell me what you think.
    A final point: Since you know, for sure, that variation did not develop, why do you think the writer did not use "had developed" in the if-clause to show an action contrary to what had really happened.
    Quote Originally Posted by Raymott View Post

    If you want an opinion about the structure, I would write "If A had happened / If variation had developed ..." [Comment: I also would do this]
    "If variation had developed, ... these areas would never have picked it up."
    The past perfect is needed here, in my opinion, and the 'after' clause has no effect on that. (As I explained a few weeks ago, I think). [
    I also agree]
    Sorry if I've missed the point. Could you let us know whether this is your question - about whether it should be 'developed' or 'had developed'? [
    No, I am sure it would be 'had developed'] If it is, then the answers are going to be the same no matter how many sentences you find on the web. Isn't this the same structure you were asking about at the beginning - the one that was answered in posts #2 and #3?
    PS: You wrote: "
    I believe formal contexts are void of such mistakes." This is a seriously erroneous belief, and the probable cause of why you haven't received a satisfactory response yet. People make mistakes. If you persist in believing that they don't, then no reply here will be satisfactory, and it's all a waste of time. [It is me who had been saying "To err is human" so I am not saying there is anything totally complete but I only wanted to say that these books are written carefully and proofread so the chance of there being such an unnatural mistake is very small.]
    A final point:
    I now believe that using the past simple after "if" is because it is non-conditional if. I mean it means "if it is true that" because the writer did not know this for sure but he was only hypothesizing. I mean "The past simple is used after "if" the same way as the future simple tense is used after "if" in pseudo conditionals, meaning "if it true that" and this is mentioned in Michael Swan's Practical English Usage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Wai View Post
    What the passage says seems to have contradicted what the writer is saying.

    I also want to know why he wrote this.

    I am not a teacher, but you can trust my answers only if you feel convinced. If not, keep asking till you finally find what you want *The Truth*.

  5. Matthew Wai's Avatar
    VIP Member
    Interested in Language
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Chinese
      • Home Country:
      • China
      • Current Location:
      • Hong Kong

    • Join Date: Nov 2013
    • Posts: 8,326
    #185

    Re: a very confusing sentence concerning the third conditional of "if"

    Quote Originally Posted by man of manners View Post
    I also want to know why he wrote this.
    He wrote it by mistake. It should have been the past perfect instead of the past simple.
    As the saying goes, 'To err is human'.
    I am not a teacher.

  6. man of manners's Avatar
    Member
    Interested in Language
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Arabic
      • Home Country:
      • Egypt
      • Current Location:
      • Egypt

    • Join Date: Jul 2016
    • Posts: 354
    #186

    Re: a very confusing sentence concerning the third conditional of "if"

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Wai View Post
    He wrote it by mistake. It should have been the past perfect instead of the past simple.
    As the saying goes, 'To err is human'.
    I think he meant something, but I don't know what it is.
    I am not a teacher, but you can trust my answers only if you feel convinced. If not, keep asking till you finally find what you want *The Truth*.

  7. Raymott's Avatar
    VIP Member
    Academic
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 25,466
    #187

    Re: a very confusing sentence concerning the third conditional of "if"

    man of manners says:
    I only wanted to say that these books are written carefully and proofread so the chance of there being such an unnatural mistake is very small.

    Sure, but if there is a mistake there, the chances rise to 100%.
    Also, there are many teachers here who can also proofread, and who are likely to pick up errors that a busy proofreader might miss. We have more time to analyse a sentence, especially once it's been pointed out as being suspicious. You also then have other teachers who will contest an incorrect answer. The chances of three or four us all being wrong about something being grammatical is smaller than in your example.

Page 19 of 19 First ... 15 16 17 18 19

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •