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

[Matthew Wai]

If you were here yesterday (and I think you probably were) you saw/will have seen/would have seen my new clock. Past possibility.

Having read the above past possibility, I am writing the following one:
'If he bore left after he reached the fork, he would have arrived.'── A real past possibility.

Does it mean the speaker does not know whether he bore left and arrived?

I give up.

I hope you have given up on the OP but not me.

 

[emsr2d2]

Having read the above past possibility, I am writing the following one:
'If he bore left after he reached the fork, he would have arrived.'── A real past possibility.

Does it mean the speaker does not know whether he bore left and arrived?

As with my last example, I would use "If he had borne left after he reached the fork, he would have arrived". The sentence suggests that he did not bear left.

 

[man of manners]

Why is the first OK but the second unnatural? They are the same in tenses and construction.

It would be best if we used the past perfect in the if-clause and, as I previously said, using the past simple instead of the past perfect is possible but unnatural so the two seem unnatural but the first one may be more acceptable because it can also be considered as a mixed conditional that means ""If your character were similar to mine ..." as emsr2s2 said in the post #127

 

[Matthew Wai]

If you were here yesterday (and I think you probably were) you saw/will have seen/would have seen my new clock. Past possibility.

I don't understand why 'would have seen' can be used in the main clause when 'were here yesterday' is used in the if-clause.

 

[man of manners]

I don't understand why 'would have seen' can be used in the main clause when 'were here yesterday' is used in the if-clause.

I know it is weird and unnatural but It is possible. I will make it simpler for you.
If you ever find a past-time reference in the if-clause, it cannot be the second conditional nor a mixed conditional.
In the sentence you quoted, there is already a past-time reference in the if-clause, so it is not the second conditional nor a mixed conditional because it is therefore doesn't refer to the future aspect. It is a false conditional where "if" gives the same meaning as "If it is true that" and if you read about false conditionals, you will know I am right.
I hope I have clarified it for you.

 

[man of manners]

Only by analysing more real examples can we know whether the past simple can be used instead of the past perfect or not, so let's discuss another example:
The page I found it on is at:
http://deadmanscrossforum.com/showthread.php?pid=92142
The example is: If it happened after a few more spawn areas had been released, It would have taken me ages!
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]

Dow we have to face in any particular direction while we are doing that?

No, you can only participate and I don't really think it is difficult

 

[jutfrank]

If you really can't see in what way this sentence is a false conditional, you can look at the main clause -not the if-clause- and if it you don't find a future tense [or any modal, of course] or a perfect conditional [would have + p.p], then, brother, it is a false conditional and although it indicates something's dependence on the other, it doesn't indicate any prediction or any function of the conditionals. The mere use of "if" is that it conveys/carries the meaning of "if it is true that/given that" and this is truly sufficient to make it a false conditional.
You can read about false/pseudo conditionals to know more and be familiar with what I have said.

I can't quite follow this. I still can't see what you think exactly is false. Are you saying there's no condition? What's your definition of false conditional? Are you saying that if a statement has the form If p is true, then q is true, then it is not conditional? I don't get it.

Where did you read about false conditionals? Can you please refer me to where I can learn more because I can't find anything.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Is discussion agony?

 

[man of manners]

I can't quite follow this. I still can't see what you think exactly is false.

I will make it more simple for you.

Are you saying there's no condition?

No, I haven't said this.

What's your definition of false conditional?

It's a conditional that is not one of the third or four main conditionals. It's a conditional where "if" merely means "If it is true that/given that/granted that".

Are you saying that if a statement has the form If p is true, then q is true, then it is not conditional?

Usually.

I don't get it.

Well, I hope you do now.

Where did you read about false conditionals? Can you please refer me to where I can learn more because I can't find anything.

On the internet. Just google "false/pseudo conditionals". There is also an explanation in my post you quoted. Compare what you will find with what I said and you will get my point.

Are you deliberately trying to prolong the agony?

If you think I am mistaken or I misunderstood the sentence and that the past simple cannot be used, please, give a logical reason for using the past simple in the sentences I provide as the one in post #134, then we all will be done with this fruitful discussion, at least to me, which you call "agony".

 

[Matthew Wai]

It's a conditional that is not one of the third or four main conditionals. It's a conditional where "if" merely means "If it is true that/given that/granted that".

I think it is the zero conditional, of which the following is an example.

If p is true, then q is true

 

[Matthew Wai]

If it happened after a few more spawn areas had been released, It would have taken me ages!

I think 'had happened' should have been used because it is a third conditional unless the writer did not know whether it had actually happened. Given the context, it is unlikely that the writer did not know.

 

[Rover_KE]

I observe that man of manners has posted the same question for the consideration of the good folk on the WordReference forum.

Maybe he expects to get different answers there.

 

[man of manners]

I think it is the zero conditional, of which the following is an example.

The zero conditional only works with habits and facts especially scientific ones.

I think 'had happened' should have been used because it is a third conditional unless the writer did not know whether it had actually happened. Given the context, it is unlikely that the writer did not know.

So have you known now the reason for the confusion I am in.
That proves that what I told you was right. I have told you that the past simple can unnaturally be used instead of the past perfect, which denotes an irrealis past situation, in the existence of another past action.
When I give more really used examples, you will be sure of what I mean. I did not say I am for this usage; I only said it does exist, but you did not believe me!

I agree. That sentence is incorrect.

That's what I also said. I literally said, "you can consider it a hyper-correct mistake."

I observe that man of manners has posted the same question for the consideration of the good folk on the WordReference forum.
Maybe he expects to get different answers there.

There is no shame to ask my question on different sites. It is also not an indicator of dissatisfaction. I just need more opinions and need to know how the folk, as you call them, feel about such a sentence. I appreciate all your answers very much and they are really very helpful to me, but I can't find a good reason for not posting my question even everywhere. It is not a matter of exclusiveness. I will keep visiting all my threads daily and respond to any posts. Starting a new thread anywhere will not affect my ordinary activities.

 

[man of manners]

A hyper-correct mistake is meaningless.

What? Don't you accept the concept of "hyper-correction" ? It's a linguistic concept.
I will complete giving examples and I want to know your opinion then. I am pretty sure you will change your mind.

 

[man of manners]

If you insist that this usage is not correct, let's discuss another example so that you may know it is in use in real contexts written by people whether native or non-native.
The example is: If it broke after he had been hanging, he would have fallen nearer the tree.
The page I found it on is at:
http://www.dover-kent.com/Newcastle-Inn-Ewell-Minnis.html
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]

The context shows that this is an irrealis situation. The past simple is incorrectly used in the sentence. It should be past perfect.

I also believe that but seeing such examples makes me get more confused.
Since you think the past simple is incorrectly used in the sentence and it should be past perfect, why do you refuse its being a hyper-correction.
Seeing such examples in use means that there are people who find it natural, but since it is not standard, as you think, why do you refuse to call it a hyper-correct mistake.

You'll almost certainly find more such examples if you search hard enough.

I already have and found only 35 relevant hits that are identical to my original example.

The fact that some people have said or written something does not make it acceptable as standard English.

But this depends on the class of people who do write using this style. I mean it is not necessarily wrongly used. There are also examples extracted from formal contexts I will provide and I want to know your opinion about them.

I have just got 40,000 hits for 'should of known better' and 290 for 'should of knowed better'. This does not make them correct.

Of course, they were written by non-native or uneducated learners or ordinary people. Those who use these forms must be uneducated or using it for sarcastic or humorous effect/style.

ps. You might be interested in the series of articles on conditional sentences beginning here: https://www.usingenglish.com/articles/conditional-sentences-in-english-1.html

Thanks very much. I really found it useful. ;-)

 

[man of manners]

What makes you think it might be?

Hyper-correction is a pronunciation or a grammatical construction produced by mistaken analogy with standard usage out of a desire to be correct.
What I mean is that "learners are told not to use more than a past perfect without a more recent action.". However this usage doesn't happen with the style of sentences I provided. This is what makes it a hyper-correction.

 

[man of manners]

Native speakers tend to under-use rather than over-use the past perfect. So, using the past simple ins place of the past perfect is unlikely yo be hypercorrection.

Even in the few situations where the past perfect is used, learners must stick to the rule "learners are told not to use more than a past perfect without a more recent action."
So, when they happen to use a sentence the same style of mine, they think that they apply the rule they were told, but, in fact, they are not.
This is sufficient to make us call it "hypercorrection".

 

[man of manners]

That might be the case for non-native speakers, but not for native speakers.

As we can see, I provide examples written by natives. I believe that everyone can make mistakes even native speakers.
But, of course, natives make far fewer mistakes because English is their first language. An educated native makes by far the fewest mistakes.