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

[man of manners]

And that's why I said the mistake we were discussing was not caused by hypercorrection.

Natives also learn English so they might mistake, thinking they are right or grammatical. Also, hypercorrection is a phenomenon among natives and non-natives alike.
I see that you agree on what I previously said. That means what you said, which is " That might be the case for non-native speakers, but not for native speakers.", was wrong.

 

[man of manners]

Now, let's discuss another example extracted from a formal context. I believe formal contexts are void of such mistakes.
The example is: 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.
The page I found it on is at:
https://books.google.com.eg/books?i...reas would never have picked it up. "&f=false
To find the example at this URL, you must copy it from here, then press (Ctrl + F) while the internet page is open and paste the example into the search box. After this, you will find the example coloured with light green.

 

[man of manners]

If variation developed after a certain date, D and D would never have picked it up.
Possible past. It is possible that variation developed after a certain date. Even if it did, the writer expresses a degree of certainty that D and D did not pick it up.

OK, I agree with you on this opinion, but you have just led me to a very similar opinion that may make us see other sentences from another perspective which is undoubtedly right.
I think the if-clause is a pseudo conditional, by which I mean that "if" means "if it is true that/given that/granted that" and is not restricted to certain tenses used in the if-clause and main clause i.e if doesn't introduce any of the main known kinds of conditionals, and the main clause is an implied conditional, by which I mean that there is no if-clause that is subordinate to it.
Let's apply this to the example above:
The original sentence says: 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.
The new one that is a simplified version of it is: If [even] it is true that 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 "it is illogical that these areas picked it up so I, the writer, logically deduce they did not"
Do you agree?

 

[man of manners]

I spoke of a degree of certainty, you of logical deduction. I generally associate certainty with will/would and logical deduction with must/can't/couldn't.

By only objecting to this point, I suppose that you agree with the other past of my last post.
We can change one word so that you completlety agree.
The new one that is a simplified version of it is: If [even] it is true that 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 "it is illogical that these areas picked it up so I, the writer, logically feel sure they did not"

 

[man of manners]

I do not.

I really don't know why you think my explanation is wrong although It's identical to yours but re-introduced or retold.

I think I have said all I have to say on this topic now.

No, you will have. there are coming examples that need all of your opinions.
It is sufficient for me to, at least, know anyone's opinion if they feel no excitement to continue. But I might have a comment on your opinion so I will respectfully say it.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Off topic: I find it better to use a dash between 'want' and 'the truth' in your signature.

 

[man of manners]

Off topic: I find it better to use a dash between 'want' and 'the truth' in your signature.

Ok, but do you not have anything to say about the new sentence we are discussing.

 

[Matthew Wai]

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.

While s/he was writing it, if the writer knew that variation had not developed after [...], the past perfect 'had developed' should have been used, and those areas had actually picked it up.
While s/he was writing it, if the writer did not know whether variation had actually developed after [...], the simple past 'developed' was correct, and s/he did not know whether those area had picked it up.

You can see that I have used the simple past 'knew' and 'did not know' in the above if-clauses. This is because I did not know whether the writer had actually known or not.

 

[jutfrank]

What are you lot actually trying to discuss? Have you not read the passage in question? The writer is saying that he doesn't know whether variation happened before or after D and D were effectively cut off. Are you seriously doubting that? He's just offering an explanation as to why variation did not develop in these areas. If D and D were cut off before variation, this might well explain why these areas never picked it up.

(By the way, manofmanners, please be careful with how you use the word 'opinion'. You are not using it in the right way. There's an important distinction between 'fact' and 'opinion'. Also, if you were to ask a clear question, you might get a clear answer.)

 

[man of manners]

While s/he was writing it, if the writer knew that variation had not developed after [...], the past perfect 'had developed' should have been used, and those areas had actually picked it up.

I agree because in this case, it would be a third conditional.

While s/he was writing it, if the writer did not know whether variation had actually developed after [...], the simple past 'developed' was correct, and s/he did not know whether those area had picked it up.

I agree that the past simple 'developed' was correct because it is a false conditional (Note: if we used the past perfect then we are sure that variation had not actually developed) but I disagree that you accepted the main clause that should have been, in this case, "these areas picked it up" with no modals because it is not a third conditional in this case. If you have any objection to any thing I said, please, let me know.

You can see that I have used the simple past 'knew' and 'did not know' in the above if-clauses. This is because I did not know whether the writer had actually known or not.

I also did not understand whether variation developed or did not after [...] from the context.

He's just offering an explanation as to why variation did not develop in these areas. If D and D were cut off before variation, this might well explain why these areas never picked it up.

If you think that why variation did not develop in these areas and that these areas never picked it up, then you are suggesting that it is the same meaning as a third conditional, are you?

 

[man of manners]

Can any one, generously, provide the context in a simpler way so that the discussion of this sentence will be easier?

 

[Rover_KE]

...and the will to live.:roll:

 

[man of manners]

Which sentence do you have in mind? After170+ posts one can lose track.

The last one, of course.
I will quote a previous post of mine for you in favour of simplicity:
Now, let's discuss another example extracted from a formal context. I believe formal contexts are void of such mistakes.
The example is: 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.
The page I found it on is at:
https://books.google.com.eg/books?id... "&f=false
To find the example at this URL, you must copy it from here, then press (Ctrl + F) while the internet page is open and paste the example into the search box. After this, you will find the example coloured with light green.

 

[jutfrank]

One more time; the passage says this:

Fact: Variation did not develop in Dacia and Dalmatia, as it did in other areas. This raises a question -- Why not?

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.)

 

[Raymott]

"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.

 

[Matthew Wai]

... 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.

 

[Matthew Wai]

One more time; the passage says this:

Fact: Variation did not develop in Dacia and Dalmatia

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.

 

[man of manners]

[FONT=&quot]Fact:[/FONT] 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.

[FONT=&quot]Hypothesis:[/FONT] 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 [FONT=&quot]variation did not develop[/FONT] 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 [FONT=&quot]would [/FONT][FONT=&quot]not[/FONT][FONT=&quot] have been sad[/FONT]. ........> This means he did not succeed so[FONT=&quot] he was sad[/FONT].
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.

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.

What the passage says seems to have contradicted what the writer is saying.

I also want to know why he wrote this.

​

 

[Matthew Wai]

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'.

 

[man of manners]

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.