by return

[Tarheel]

Return any broken goods.

I was thinking:

"Return any damaged items."

But that works too.

:up:

 

[teechar]

I used past tense because the goods were damaged [STRIKE]once[/STRIKE] when I received them. But, what's wrong [STRIKE]in[/STRIKE] with the past tense? If I use present tense, I think it doesn't make sense. Can you please tell me what's wrong?

The present tense works. That would be implying a present factual assessment of the state of the goods.
If the goods are damaged, please return them.

The past simple is typically used in the second conditional to indicate a low probability of something (here, the goods being damaged).
If the goods were damaged, he would return them.

Do you now see why the present simple fits your context better?

 

[Tarheel]

But, what's wrong with the past tense? :cross:
But what's wrong with the past tense? :tick:
What's wrong with the past tense? :tick:

 

[Polyester]

The present tense works. That would be implying a present factual assessment of the state of the goods.
If the goods are damaged, please return them.

The past simple is typically used in the second conditional to indicate a low probability of something (here, the goods being damaged).
If the goods were damaged, he would return them.

Do you now see why the present simple fits your context better?

1. I receive the goods and it is broken. This sentence means I just find the goods broken in present time. I can understand.
2. I now agree with you for the past tense is quite low probability for found the goods were broken. I have no reason and no action to find the goods were damaged in the past. Is it correct?

 

[Tarheel]

1. I receive the goods and they are broken.

You can say that, but in practical terms it doesn't make much sense. Perhaps:

I opened the package and examined the goods. I saw that some of them were damaged. I returned the damaged goods.

 

[teechar]

1. I receive the goods and [STRIKE]it is[/STRIKE] they are broken. This sentence means I just find the goods broken in present time. I can understand.
2. I now agree with you for the past tense is quite low probability for found the goods were broken. I have no reason and no action to find the goods were damaged in the past. Is it correct?

No, Polyester. I was trying to teach you how to use conditionals.


Jack: Mary, if the goods are damaged, please return them.
Mary: OK.

Here, Jack is using the present simple to talk about the present state/condition of something. Note that the damage occurred in the past, but the state/condition (faulty goods) is still current.

To clarify it, let's use "faulty" instead of "damaged"

Jack: Mary, if the goods are faulty, please return them.
Mary: OK.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Now, let's go back to your sentence, in which you used "were". My point is that in conditionals, the past simple is not usually used to indicate a past situation. It is used to indicate a low probability of something being true.

For example,
If the goods were damages, they wouldn't ship them next week.

Note that this is not about the past! The reason we use "were" is to indicate that there is a low probability of the goods being damaged.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Does that make sense?

 

[Polyester]

No, Polyester. I was trying to teach you how to use conditionals.


Jack: Mary, if the goods are damaged, please return them.
Mary: OK.

Here, Jack is using the present simple to talk about the present state/condition of something. Note that the damage occurred in the past, but the state/condition (faulty goods) is still current.

To clarify it, let's use "faulty" instead of "damaged"

Jack: Mary, if the goods are faulty, please return them.
Mary: OK.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Now, let's go back to your sentence, in which you used "were". My point is that in conditionals, the past simple is not usually used to indicate a past situation. It is used to indicate a low probability of something being true.

For example,
If the goods were damages, they wouldn't ship them next week.

Note that this is not about the past! The reason we use "were" is to indicate that there is a low probability of the goods being damaged.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Does that make sense?

Hi teacher,
Yes it does.
==================================================================================================
1. I used past tense because I know it happening in the past in my dictionary. But it's quite low probability to happen. It does not intend to do or won't do in the future. I find the faulty of my sentence.
For example,
If the goods were damages, they wouldn't ship them next week.


It means the goods will be damaged or not, not sure in this situation.

2. If I used the present tense, the goods are damaged in the past time and in the present time in this situation, I will actually do the action like return it.

In sum of my view, if the conditions are very clear and I already know, I will use the present tense in this condition. If I'm not sure or low probability in these conditions, past tense will be used here.

==============================================================================================
Teacher,
Thank you your great help. Your explanations are very clear and easy to understand. Hope you teach me next time.

 

[teechar]

Hi teacher,
Yes it does.
==================================================================================================
1. I used past tense because I know it [STRIKE]happening[/STRIKE] happened in the past in my dictionary. But it's quite low probability. [STRIKE]to happen.[/STRIKE] It [STRIKE]does not intend to do or won't do[/STRIKE] may or may not happen in the future. I [STRIKE]find[/STRIKE] see the fault in [STRIKE]y of[/STRIKE] my sentence.
For example,
If the goods were damaged, they wouldn't ship them next week.


It means the goods [STRIKE]will[/STRIKE] may be damaged or not. We are not sure in this situation.

2. If I used the present tense, the goods are damaged in the past time and in the present time in this situation. I will actually do the action [STRIKE]like[/STRIKE] of returning them. [STRIKE]it.[/STRIKE]

Yes, and note that there are mixed conditionals too, and that complicates the topic further, unfortunately!

In summary, [STRIKE]of my view,[/STRIKE] if the conditions are very clear and I already know, I will use the present tense in this condition. If I'm not sure or low probability in these conditions, past tense will be used here.

Yes, well done.

Teacher,
Thank you your great help. Your explanations are very clear and easy to understand. I hope you teach me next time.

You're most welcome. The best way to learn is to ask questions.

 

[Rover_KE]

I don't think anybody has yet pointed out that by return (or by return of post) has a special meaning in British English.

in the next available mail delivery to the sender.

We will send you a refund by return (of post).

(Collins)