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".
I would if I did, but I won't because I don't.
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.
I would buy you that toy you want so much, son, if I had enough money, but I won't buy it because I don't have enough at the moment.
He would make a great husband if he stopped drinking so much alcohol, but he will make a terrible husband because of his drinking problem.
My favorite candidate would win the election if it wasn't for the fake news in the media, but he won't win because they lie about him so much.
Robots would take over the world if they could get as intelligent as humans, but they won't have a chance because a machine can never be as intelligent as a human being.
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 would buy you the toy if I had enough money.
He would make a great husband if he stopped drinking.
My favorite candidate would win if the media stopped lying about him.
Robots would take over the world if they weren't so stupid.
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.
I will buy you the toy if I have enough money.
He will make a great husband if he stops drinking.
My favorite candidate will win if the media stop lying about him.
Robots will take over the world if they get as intelligent as humans.
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.
Could robots start being used as personal trainers in the future, instead of human beings? If so, could it be done as soon as 2050? If this happens, robots will start thinking they are humans, and that will create a problem for us.
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: