Glizdka
Key Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2019
- Member Type
- Other
- Native Language
- Polish
- Home Country
- Poland
- Current Location
- Poland
Not a teacher
------
Hello, tree123!
I think you've got the whole idea wrong. Remember that language is just something we use to express what we think. Each grammatical construction is a tool a speaker can use to express themselves.
The role of the second conditional is not to tell a verified, scientifically proven fact from a hypothesis, speculation. Its role is just to express what the speaker believes. It doesn't matter whether it's actually true, or whether you know if it's true or not. It simply communicates "I don't believe that".
This sentence states what I believe is going to happen, why I believe it's going to happen, what I believe is not going to happen, and why I believe it's not going to happen.
If you isolate just what I believe is not going to happen and why I think it's not going to happen, you can build sentences in the second conditional.
I believe I won't have enough money to buy my son the toy, I believe he won't stop drinking, I believe the media won't stop lying about my favorite candidate, and I believe robots won't take over the world.
The same sentences in the first conditional will not change whether these things will happen or not. It will only communicate that I believe I'll have enough money to buy my son the toy, I believe he will stop drinking, I believe the media will stop lying about my favorite candidate, and I believe robots will take over the world.
It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong. Being wrong doesn't stop many people from believing ridiculous claims. I may also choose my words on purpose, even despite the fact I do know the truth. I may be, for instance, maliciously spreading rumors that he has a drinking problem to undermine his relationship with a girl I fancy because I want her for myself. The second conditional may even be a tool for making my tone be construed in a specific way. As it always is with language, the sky is the limit.
Looking at this piece of writing, I think the writer might be worried about how the development of robots will affect humanity in the future. I think the author considers taking over the world by robots as a real possibility, maybe even a threat. I think using the first conditional is perfectly justifiable here.
------
Hello, tree123!
I think you've got the whole idea wrong. Remember that language is just something we use to express what we think. Each grammatical construction is a tool a speaker can use to express themselves.
The role of the second conditional is not to tell a verified, scientifically proven fact from a hypothesis, speculation. Its role is just to express what the speaker believes. It doesn't matter whether it's actually true, or whether you know if it's true or not. It simply communicates "I don't believe that".
This sentence states what I believe is going to happen, why I believe it's going to happen, what I believe is not going to happen, and why I believe it's not going to happen.
If you isolate just what I believe is not going to happen and why I think it's not going to happen, you can build sentences in the second conditional.
I believe I won't have enough money to buy my son the toy, I believe he won't stop drinking, I believe the media won't stop lying about my favorite candidate, and I believe robots won't take over the world.
The same sentences in the first conditional will not change whether these things will happen or not. It will only communicate that I believe I'll have enough money to buy my son the toy, I believe he will stop drinking, I believe the media will stop lying about my favorite candidate, and I believe robots will take over the world.
It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong. Being wrong doesn't stop many people from believing ridiculous claims. I may also choose my words on purpose, even despite the fact I do know the truth. I may be, for instance, maliciously spreading rumors that he has a drinking problem to undermine his relationship with a girl I fancy because I want her for myself. The second conditional may even be a tool for making my tone be construed in a specific way. As it always is with language, the sky is the limit.
Looking at this piece of writing, I think the writer might be worried about how the development of robots will affect humanity in the future. I think the author considers taking over the world by robots as a real possibility, maybe even a threat. I think using the first conditional is perfectly justifiable here.
Last edited:
