degree of weakend condition

[ostap77]

"If Steve is going to travel to Iran, he would be able to get a visa on arrival."
Could I use "would" in the result clause to mean that the outcome in the result clause is not totally certain?

 

[bhaisahab]

It would seem that it is not certain that Steve will travel to Iran. If he does, it is certain that he will get a visa on arrival.

 

[ostap77]

What I meant is the following. Most nationalities are eligable for a visa on arrival at international airports except for a few. I know that he already bought tickets to Tehran and is going to fly there. But it's not certain if he gets through passport control. So I'm sure about Steve flying there in the if-clause, whereas I reserve a certain degree of uncertainty in the result clause.

 

[Raymott]

I think bhai understood what you meant. You've got it backwards. Your initial sentence has uncertainty in the 'if' clause, and certainty in the 'then' clause. "If X then Y". You want "X and possibly Y".
Ask yourself this: Why are you using "If" when you know for sure. And why are you using "he would" when there's a chance that he might not?

Do you mean, "When Steve goes to Iran, he will possibly/probably be able to get a visa on arrival"?
In short, the only uncertainty (conditionality) of "would" comes from the "if" clause.
​

 

[ostap77]

1)Yes. I mean that he will probably get a visa once gets in at Tehran International. But I'm not totally sure what nationality he holds.

2) Could you also tell me the difference between the following senttences?

"If Steve is going to travel to Iran, he would be able to get a visa on arrival."

AND

"If Steve is going to travel to Iran, he will be able to get a visa on arrival."

 

[emsr2d2]

There is no meaningful difference between them. They both suggest that you know that he will/would get a visa on arrival, which suggests you know his nationality. If you don't know his nationality, then your only real choice is "... he might be able to get a visa on arrival".

 

[ostap77]

Would "would" in the result clause mean a slight difference in certainty?

 

[emsr2d2]

Not for me, no. For me, it would only make sense if the "if" clause was uncertain about him travelling there at all. "Steve's going abroad. I think he said he's going to either Iran or India, he hasn't decided which. If he chose to go to Iran, he would be able to get a visa on arrival. If he chose to go to India, he wouldn't". That still suggests that the speaker knows Steve's nationality and that a visa on arrival is an option which is definitely open to him at one of his potential destinations.

 

[Roman55]

I am not a teacher.

Has anyone pointed out that "weakend" isn't a word?

It should be weakened, unless, of course, Steve is going to Iran for the weekend.

 

[ostap77]

Sorry for the typo. I guess I've probably been a pain in the......throughout the thread. I'm just tryign to understand it. What would a non-meaningful difference be? When I use ''would" in the result clause, am I saying "if Steve is going to ........, I think he should able to get it." ? If I used "will'' instead of "would", would I be saying that he just should be able to get it?

 

[Raymott]

Yes, you can use 'should' here with the meaning of 'would'.
You've confused the matter by introducing the clause with "I think ...". There's a definite difference between, "He should be able to get it" and "He will be able to get it". There's little difference between "I think he should be able to get it" and "I think he will be able to get it."

Remove "I think" from your examples, and you might understand this better. On the other hand, if you are interested in the effect of adding "I think", then concentrate on that; but try not to mix the two.

 

[Roman55]

I am not a teacher.

I think part of the problem here is the tenses you are using. I don't see "would" as a conditional at all. I see it as the past of "will".

If you say, "If Steve went to Iran, he would be able to get a visa on arrival", or "If Steve goes to Iran, he will be able to get a visa on arrival" then it seems to me that there is no meaningful difference between them. In both cases the uncertainty is whether or not Steve is actually going to Iran, but if he does go he will get a visa.

You said, "If Steve is going to travel to Iran, he would be able to get a visa on arrival." and this mixture of tenses doesn't sound natural to me. This, in essence, is what bhai said in post #2 and Raymott in post #4.