[Grammar] A question about hypothethis

[dylc]

I want to ask if (2) is grammatically correct? If it is, what's the difference between these two sentences? Thanks.

(1) You could have become a doctor if you had studied harder
(2) You could become a doctor if you had studied harder

 

[Rover_KE]

#1 would be correct if you had ended it with the correct punctuation mark.

#2 is ungrammatical even if you end it properly.

 

[emsr2d2]

2 starts with "You could become a doctor", which refers to the future. You need to end the sentence so that it also refers to the future. Can you work out how it should end?

 

[dylc]

I got this question after reading this guide which says,

A. We use the past perfect to talk about something which did not happen in the past. (conditional clauses)
B. If the main clause of a hypothetical conditional is about the present or future, we use a modal.

So I think
You could become a doctor --> B
if you had studied harder --> A

Then it means: you didn't study harder so you're not a doctor now. What's wrong in my thinking?

In that article, there's a sentence "If you had done your homework, you would know the answer." which seems similar to my example. It also uses past perfect in conditional clause and model in the main clause. Is it right to think so?

 

[jutfrank]

So I think
You could become a doctor --> B
if you had studied harder --> A

Then it means: you didn't study harder so you're not a doctor now. What's wrong in my thinking?

The main problem is this: You seem to be confusing be (to talk about the present) with become (to talk about the future).

The verb phrase become a doctor relates only to the future. You can become a doctor in the future but you can't become a doctor now. You can only be (or not be) a doctor now.

 

[dylc]

The main problem is this: You seem to be confusing be (to talk about the present) with become (to talk about the future).

The verb phrase become a doctor relates only to the future. You can become a doctor in the future but you can't become a doctor now. You can only be (or not be) a doctor now.

I'm still confused

1. Using become doesn't seem to violate rule B, which says "If the main clause of a hypothetical conditional is about the present or future".
2. Do you mean if I use be to replace become, this sentence will be grammatically correct? That is,
You could be a doctor, if you had studied harder.
However I think usually the textbook will say it should be
You could be a doctor, if you studied harder.

 

[Tarheel]

You want to say:

You could have become a doctor if you had studied harder.

That one might be spoken in real life.

 

[jutfrank]

1. Using become doesn't seem to violate rule B, which says "If the main clause of a hypothetical conditional is about the present or future".

Yes, that's right.

2. Do you mean if I use be to replace become, this sentence will be grammatically correct? That is,
You could be a doctor, if you had studied harder.

Yes, that's also correct, but it could then relate to the present or the future. Your original sentence, where the main clause relates to the future only, is correct, too. The reason I mentioned be and become was because you seemed to be confusing present with future in your post #4.

Let me make it clear for you:

You could become a doctor if you had studied harder.

The blue (main) clause is about the future and the red (subordinate) clause is about the past. It's rare for conditionals to be structured in this way but it is perfectly possible. What you're doing with this sentence is positing a hypothetical future result of a hypothetical past. In other words, if I imagine a past where you did study hard enough, I would be able to imagine a future where you become a doctor as a result of all that hard work. But since in reality you did not study hard enough, I therefore believe that it is not possible for you to be a doctor at any point in the future.

With your sentence 1, both clauses are about the past, where the action in the main clause is obviously located in time after that in the subordinate clause.

However I think usually the textbook will say it should be
You could be a doctor, if you studied harder.

No, that's a different meaning.

 

[dylc]

I'm not sure if I really understand it correctly. What I feel is, it's not the tense but the verb that confused me. Both sentences are correct in terms of grammar but (2) does not make sense in general.

Now another question came to me: is the following sentence normal?

You could become ___ if you ____.

I can't think of an example. Most results of googling "You could become" use "If you could become ...".

 

[emsr2d2]

I can't think of an example for your "fill in the blanks" exercise, mainly because of the comma in the middle. It shouldn't be there. Without it, there are plenty of possibilities.

 

[dylc]

I can't think of an example for your "fill in the blanks" exercise, mainly because of the comma in the middle. It shouldn't be there. Without it, there are plenty of possibilities.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I've corrected it. Could you show me an example?

 

[emsr2d2]

Well, we're not going to have to look very far for an example. These fit your blanks perfectly:

You could become a doctor if you studied harder.
You could become a doctor if you study harder.

 

[dylc]

Well, we're not going to have to look very far for an example. These fit your blanks perfectly:

You could become a doctor if you studied harder.
You could become a doctor if you study harder.

Is there any difference between these two?
Does the "if clause" in the 2nd sentence refer to feature or present?

 

[jutfrank]

I'm not sure if I really understand it correctly. What I feel is, it's not the tense but the verb that confused me. Both sentences are correct in terms of grammar but (2) does not make sense in general.

Why do you think it doesn't make sense? Do you mean you don't understand what it means? I explained that already in detail in post #8.

Now another question came to me: is the following sentence normal?

You could become ___ if you ____.

I can't think of an example. Most results of googling "You could become" use "If you could become ...".

Yes, that's very normal, as emsr2d2 has said.

It's not clear to me what you don't understand. I have an intuition, however, that it may be related to the word could, which is very tricky and confusing in conditional sentences because it has different meanings and uses depending on the context.

 

[dylc]

Why do you think it doesn't make sense? Do you mean you don't understand what it means? I explained that already in detail in post #8.

Maybe I misused the phase "make sense". I want to express that native speakers usually feel that sentence strange at first glance. Rover_KE said it's ungrammatical in #2, emsr2d2 said that does not end referring to future in #3, and you said it's a rare usage in #8. So I think it's not the problem of grammar. Just nobody makes a sentence like that.

Yes, that's very normal, as emsr2d2 has said.

It's not clear to me what you don't understand. I have an intuition, however, that it may be related to the word could, which is very tricky and confusing in conditional sentences because it has different meanings and uses depending on the context.

To be frank, I don't know what my problem is. Why do I feel all these sentences are so much alike? I can understand your explanation, but when I saw other sentences, for example, emsr2d2's answers in post #12, I'm stuck again.

 

[jutfrank]

Don't worry about it, then. This is a very difficult area of English, so I'm not surprised you don't understand. Just stick with the most common conditional types at the moment (the ones commonly called zero, first and second).

 

[dylc]

Regarding emsr2d2's examples, I found a similar question here.
Putting them together:

You could be a doctor if you studied harder.
You could become a doctor if you studied harder.
You could become a doctor if you study harder.
You can be a doctor if you study harder.

As jutfrank points out, it's the context I'm confused but I'm afraid there's more than the word could.

When to use could and when to use can?
When to use be and when to use become?
When to use study and when to use studied?

If I think I understand all the explanation so far, should I still be confused about them?

 

[Tarheel]

One thing all those sentences have in common is the speaker can't be certain of what is being said. You might be able to increase your chances of getting into medical school if you study harder, but there are no guarantees. (Only one out of three who apply to medical school are accepted.)

Also remember that context is always important.