I could have been a lawyer vs. he could have been looked after

[emsr2d2]

I did not try to incorporate the idea.
I tried to show that the idea did not make sense by putting the if-clause at the beginning.

The idea of the other person being remotely like Nora doesn't make sense regardless of where in the sentence it appears.

 

[shootingstar]

The idea of the other person being remotely like Nora doesn't make sense regardless of where in the sentence it appears.

(I've now focused on the mere existence of a cat keeper and changed the if-sentence: "You looked after him as well as he could have been looked after, if there had been anyone else but you at all (to look after him)").


You could just as well say the same thing in a separate sentence:

You looked after him as well as he could have been looked after. What if there hadn't been anyone at all to look after him which is highly probable for an alley cat.

 

[5jj]

"You looked after him as well as he could have been looked after, if there had been anyone else but you at all (to look after him)"


You could just as well say the same thing in a separate sentence:

You looked after him as well as he could have been looked after. What if there hadn't been anyone at all to look after him which is highly probable for an alley cat.

The italicised sentences do not say the same thing

 

[5jj]

What about this sentence:

You looked after him as well as he could have been looked after, if there had been anyone else but you at all (to look after him).

I think there is conditionality implied, right?

It is not implied; it is explcitly stated.

 

[Matthew Wai]

You looked after him as well as he could have been looked after. What if there hadn't been anyone at all to look after him which is highly probable for an alley cat.

(1) The real situation was that Nora looked after him well.
(2) The unreal situation was that nobody looked after him.
What does (2) have to do with (1)?

 

[shootingstar]

(1) The real situation was that Nora looked after him well.
(2) The unreal situation was that nobody looked after him.
What does (2) have to do with (1)?

2 has to do with 1 that luckily there was Nora who cared for Volt (the cat). However, what if she hadn't been there to do so?! The conditional three's if-clause expresses the very same condition.

 

[5jj]

2 has to do with 1 that luckily there was Nora who cared for Volt (the cat). However, what if she hadn't been there to do so?!

There is no justification at all for thinking that the idea of 'luckily' is present in the first sentence. Nothing in the second sentence can add any conditional idea to the first sentence.

 

[shootingstar]

There is no justification at all for thinking that the idea of 'luckily' is present in the first sentence. Nothing in the second sentence can add any conditional idea to the first sentence.

You didn't read the full cited text I suppose

 

[jutfrank]

I think you are referring to the sentence with the words "as well as he could have been looked after".

Yes, of course.

What about this sentence:

You looked after him as well as he could have been looked after, if there had been anyone else but you at all (to look after him).

I think there is conditionality implied, right?

First of all, there can be nothing implied if you state a condition explicitly. Secondly, your sentence doesn't make sense.

Secondly, I would implore you not to make up your own sentences when you don't really know what they mean. If you want to understand this difficut area, study real sentences in use.

 

[shootingstar]

Secondly, I would implore you not to make up your own sentences when you don't really know what they mean.

Then, please explain to me what the sentence "if there had been anyone else but you at all (to look after him)" mean. Thank you in advance.

 

[jutfrank]

Then, please explain to me what the sentence "if there had been anyone else but you at all (to look after him)" mean.

It's not a sentence, and you made it up specially as an attempt to demonstrate that there is implied conditionality in the actual sentence that we were discussing. This is after both 5jj and I have told you there isn't.

Come on, let's not waste time here. Are you honestly saying you don't understand what the sentence means? Even though we've told you several times?

 

[shootingstar]

Are you honestly saying you don't understand what the sentence means? Even though we've told you several times?

Sorry, I am. And I actually apologise for doing so.

 

[5jj]

Please tell us which part of ONE sentence puzzles you. Once we have sorted that out, we'll look at another part,

 

[jutfrank]

Sorry, I am.

From post #12:

The sentence means that there is no possible history where he was better looked after than the actual history where Nora looked after him.

 

[shootingstar]

From post #12: The sentence means that there is no possible history where he was better looked after than the actual history where Nora looked after him.

No, you are referring to the wrong sentence. I want to know what the clause if there had been anyone else but you at all (to look after him) means.

The following is the background (post #30):

Secondly, I would implore you not to make up your own sentences when you don't really know what they mean.

My answer was:
Then, please explain to me what the sentence "if there had been anyone else but you at all (to look after him)" means. Thank you in advance.
(It has to be "what the clause .... means)

 

[5jj]

We seem to be going round in circles. I am leaving this thread for others who have more patience than I.

May the force be with you.

 

[jutfrank]

And with you. Alas, we are going round in circles.

shootingstar: I'm asking you please not to ask us what something you've made up means.

You have two options here: You can either ask us about the meaning of an authentic conditional sentence that you've seen or heard somewhere, or carefully describe to us a thought that you have in mind and then we'll tell you how to phrase it properly.

 

[shootingstar]

This thread seems to be like a red rag to a bull. For all that, I thought it interesting. But don't be cross with me. Better days will come again.