[Grammar] In 1979 ... if you walk on the streets of New York, you might’ve come across ...

[jutfrank]

I agree with tedmc. I don't think the subtitle writer meant that. I think it's probably an error.

 

[probus]

As I keep on repeating (with a nod to Flanders and Swann), subtitles nowadays are largely written by computers. Mistakes are therefore common.

 

[kadioguy]

[...]
2. If you walked on the streets of New York, you might’ve come across a tall and thin, middle-aged Buddhist monk with black-rimmed glasses.

This is grammatical. The meaning is If it was your habit to walk ... , then it is possible that at some time during your walks you came across ...

There is a real possibility that you did walk.

Can it mean If you walked at least once on the streets of New York ...? (That is, not a habit, but you did walk for at least one time.)

The same to this:

3. If you had walked on the streets of New York, you might’ve come across a tall and thin, middle-aged Buddhist monk with black-rimmed glasses.
This is grammatical. The meaning is If it had been your habit to walk ... , then it is possible that at some time during your walks you would have come across...
You did not walk. The idea of your walking is presented as an irrealis situation.

Can it mean If you had walked at least once on the streets of New York ...? (That is, not a habit, but at least for one time.)

 

[jutfrank]

It could, yes, but it doesn't.

 

[kadioguy]

It could, yes, but it doesn't.

Do you mean it could, but it doesn't, because it is more like an error in the original? If you don't mean that, could you please tell me more?

 

[jutfrank]

I mean I'm fairly certain that it doesn't mean 'if you walked on the streets of New York just a single time'.

My feeling is that it is simply an error, and that the intended meaning is 5jj's number 3 from post #15.

Perhaps tedmc, who I presume understands the original Chinese, could confirm this for us.

 

[kadioguy]

I mean I'm fairly certain that it doesn't mean 'if you walked on the streets of New York just a single time'.

My feeling is that it is simply an error, and that the intended meaning is 5jj's number 3 from post #15.

Perhaps tedmc, who I presume understands the original Chinese, could confirm this for us.

I now also think that the intended meaning in the original is 5jj's number 3 from post #15.

So, if we put the original context aside, sentence (A) can mean either (A1) or (A2), and sentence (B) can mean either (B1) or (B2). Is that right?

(I know that you answered in post #24; I just want to confirm it again, if you don't mind.)
-----
A. If you walked on the streets of New York, you might’ve come across a tall and thin, middle-aged Buddhist monk with black-rimmed glasses.

A1.
The meaning is If it was your habit to walk ... , then it is possible that at some time during your walks you came across ...

There is a real possibility that you did walk.

A2.
It could also mean If you walked at least once on the streets of New York ...? (That is, not a habit, but you did walk for at least one time.)

B.
If you had walked on the streets of New York, you might’ve come across a tall and thin, middle-aged Buddhist monk with black-rimmed glasses.

B1.
The meaning is If it had been your habit to walk ... , then it is possible that at some time during your walks you would have come across...

You did not walk. The idea of your walking is presented as an irrealis situation.

B2.
It could also mean If you had walked at least once on the streets of New York ...? (That is, not a habit, but at least for one time.)

 

[jutfrank]

I now also think that the intended meaning in the original is 5jj's number 3 from post #15.

To be honest, I don't really understand how neither you nor tedmc seem to know what the narrator is saying. I suppose there's some translation difficulty that I'm not aware of.

So, if we put the original context aside

I strongly suggest you do not do that. You must take as a starting point the speaker meaning. There are several reason for this, but here are the most salient two:

a) This is translation. The whole point is to interpret the meaning of what the original Chinese text says.
b) This is a conditional sentence. Conditional sentences are tremendously complex and varied. The way to deal with them is by first understanding what the speaker has in mind.

Let me ask you a couple of questions:

1) Are you competent in the particular language that the original text is in? Is it Mandarin?
2) Can you tell us what the speaker means? If not, can you say why you can't?

 

[kadioguy]

To be honest, I don't really understand how neither you nor tedmc seem to know what the narrator is saying. I suppose there's some translation difficulty that I'm not aware of.

I think that tedmc and I both know what the narrator is saying, but how to translate it into English is hard. Chinese has no verb tense and is loose to what is called "conditional sentences" in English (and that may be why the subtitle writer made the error).

I strongly suggest you do not do that. You must take as a starting point the speaker meaning. There are several reason for this, but here are the most salient two:

a) This is translation. The whole point is to interpret the meaning of what the original Chinese text says.
b) This is a conditional sentence. Conditional sentences are tremendously complex and varied. The way to deal with them is by first understanding what the speaker has in mind.

You are right. But I just wanted to know about conditional sentences. I mean, let's say, there are two conditional sentences, (a) and (b). Do (a) can mean either (a1) or (a2), and (b) can mean either (b1) or (b2)?

Let me ask you a couple of questions:

1) Are you competent in the particular language that the original text is in? Is it Mandarin?
2) Can you tell us what the speaker means? If not, can you say why you can't?

1. Yes, and yes.

2. To me, what the speaker says in Chinese can translate into English as follows:

If you had walked on the streets of New York in 1979, you might’ve come across Sheng Yen. (He was often on the streets at that time.) [Unreal conditional]

Or

If you ever walked on the streets of New York in 1979, you might’ve come across Sheng Yen. (He was often on the streets at that time.) [Real conditional]

[We can't tell which one the speaker really means, because in Chinese it can refer to either one.]

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

2. To me, what the speaker says in Chinese can translate into English as follows:

If you had walked on the streets of New York in 1979, you might’ve come across Sheng Yen. (He was often on the streets at that time.) [Unreal conditional]

Or

If you ever walked on the streets of New York in 1979, you might’ve come across Sheng Yen. (He was often on the streets at that time.) [Real conditional]

[We can't tell which one the speaker really means, because in Chinese it can refer to either one.]

Since this is a translation from a language that isn't as picky about tenses as English is, either one will do.

Personally, I'd say "If you had ever walked.":

- The "had" tells us the walking has ended, but it's not needed because "in 1979" makes that clear.

- The "ever" tells us that you might have only walked there once that year. It's not needed, either, but the writer is emphasizing that you didn't need to be a frequent walker.​

But they all convey the same information. The tone of the English is the translator's decision.

 

[kadioguy]

[...]
Personally, I'd say "If you had ever walked.":

- The "had" tells us the walking has ended, but it's not needed because "in 1979" makes that clear. [...]​

Did you use it as a real conditional rather than a unreal one (i.e., the third conditional)?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Did you use it as a real conditional rather than a unreal one (i.e., the third conditional)?

I have no idea. I can tell you a lot about usage but not much about grammar.

 

[kadioguy]

Personally, I'd say "If you had ever walked.":

- The "had" tells us the walking has ended, but it's not needed because "in 1979" makes that clear.

- The "ever" tells us that you might have only walked there once that year. It's not needed, either, but the writer is emphasizing that you didn't need to be a frequent walker.​

[...] I can tell you a lot about usage but not much about grammar.

Which one did you think when you used "If you had ever walked ..."?

1. "It is impossible that you had ever walked here in 1979; that is just a imagination."

2. "It is possible that you had ever walked here in 1979, and if you really did it, you might've ..."

It seems (2) to me.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Which one did you think when you used "If you had ever walked ..."?

1. "It is impossible that you had ever walked here in 1979. That is just [STRIKE]a[/STRIKE] imagination."

2. "It is possible that you had ever walked here in 1979, and if you really did[STRIKE] it[/STRIKE], you might've ..."

It seems (2) to me.

Neither. Both are wordy. Neither is natural. As I said above, I'd use "If you had ever walked . . . ."

 

[kadioguy]

[...] As I said above, I'd use "If you had ever walked . . . ."

I mean, when you'd use "If you had ever walked ... ." in this case, would you assume that it is a unreal past situation, or would you assume that it could be a real past situation?

 

[emsr2d2]

I would go with "unreal" for "If you had ever walked ...".

Helen: Did you ever walk the streets of Bologna in 1735?
Sarah: No, of course not. I wasn't even born then!
Helen: Well, if you had walked those streets then, you might have seen a scary man with a big stick.

In Helen's second line, the word "had" would be stressed.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I mean, when you'd use "If you had ever walked ... ." in this case, would you assume that it is a unreal past situation,

No.

In some contexts, we could assume that you had not, but there is nothing in the sentence to lead us to think that.

or would you assume that it could be a real past situation?

I would not assume that you had walked there then, and I would not assume that you had not.

Remember: The first word of the sentence is "If."

 

[5jj]

Originally Posted by kadioguy
I mean, when you'd use "If you had ever walked ... ." in this case, would you assume that it is a unreal past situation,

No.

In some contexts, we could assume that you had not, but there is nothing in the sentence to lead us to think that.

or would you assume that it could be a real past situation?

I would not assume that you had walked there then, and I would not assume that you had not.

With a sentence beginning If you had ever walked", I would assume it was a past unreal situation. That's the normal use of if in combination with the past perfect.

 

[kadioguy]

With a sentence beginning If you had ever walked", I would assume it was a past unreal situation. That's the normal use of if in combination with the past perfect.

If you don't mind, could you please tell me why you used "it was" rather than "it is"? Did you see it as something in the past ? (Because you saw it before, not now. Or is it because that is a unreal situation, so was?)

 

[5jj]

What we are talking about is a past-time situation.