[Grammar] If he had taken part in that competition, he would've come either first or second.

[NAL123]

A person to his wife:

One of my friends is a very good race car driver. Few days ago he told me that he was going to take part in a car racing competition. I don't know whether he actually participated in it or not, neither do I know about its results. But one thing is sure, if he had taken part in that competition, he would've come either first or second.

Q: Is the underlined sentence correct?

The reason behind my asking the question is that I do know the second conditional is used to talk about an unreal/imagined situation that is not necessarily counterfactual in nature. For example:

1) If I won the lottery, I would buy a big house. (talking about an unlikely situation in the future that is not counterfactual; an open second conditional)

2) If I had his number, I would call him. (talking about a present counterfactual situation; a closed second conditional)


Could we use the third conditional in the same way to talk about past situations? For example:

3) If we had taken a taxi, we wouldn't have missed the plane. (talking about a past counterfactual situation; a closed third conditional)

4) If he had taken part in that competition, he would've come either first or second. (talking about an unlikely (likely??) situation in the past that is not counterfactual; an open third conditional) (Please see above for context of this sentence)


Or is the construction, If+subject+had+past participle, then+subject+would have+past participle, reserved for past counterfactuals only?

 

[NAL123]

Re: Third conditional to talk about unknown past situations

Yes.

You need: If he took part, he would have come first or second.

Now consider the following conversation, please:

A person to his wife:

One of my friends is a very good race car driver. Few days ago he told me that he was going to take part in a car racing competition. I don't know whether he actually participated in it or not, neither do I know about its results. But one thing is sure, if he took part/did take part in that competition, he would soon give a grand success party. (the speaker believes that if his friend took part, he would have come first or second, and therefore, would give a success party, because every time his friend wins a racing competition, he (his friend) throws a party)

Is the underlined sentence above correct?

 

[jutfrank]

Re: Third conditional to talk about unknown past situations

Your first sentence is what I'd call a real past conditional. Other than Piscean's suggestion in post #2, you could also say:

If he did take part, he would have come first or second.

The use of the auxiliary did, which would be stressed in speech, is an effective way to express the 'realness' of the past possibility of his taking part.

he would soon give a grand success party.

You can understand this clause as an expression of certainty about a future event, so you need a future form, such as will or going to, not would.

(You should also know that the way you've phrased it is not right. We don't 'give parties' and we don't say 'success parties'.)

 

[NAL123]

Re: Third conditional to talk about unknown past situations

Your first sentence is what I'd call a real past conditional. Other than Piscean's suggestion in post #2, you could also say:

If he did take part, he would have come first or second.

The use of the auxiliary did, which would be stressed in speech, is an effective way to express the 'realness' of the past possibility of his taking part.

Consider the following, please:

Person A: Where is my car?
Person B: I don't know. Maybe John took it.

5) Person A: If John took/did take it, he would have let me know.

6) Person A: If John had taken it, he would have let me know.

Q) In each case, person A does not know whether John actually took it or not, but they believe that John did not take it, because he did not let them know. Which one is correct?

 

[jutfrank]

Re: Third conditional to talk about unknown past situations

Again, I'd teach you to try to think of this in terms of what I think of as 'realness'.

Sentence 6) is unreal, which means that the speaker thinks John could not have taken it. In other words, person A does know, or rather, has sufficient reason for belief. Be careful about how you distinguish knowledge and belief.

 

[NAL123]

Re: Third conditional to talk about unknown past situations

Again, I'd teach you to try to think of this in terms of what I think of as 'realness'.

Sentence 6) is unreal, which means that the speaker thinks John could not have taken it. In other words, person A does know, or rather, has sufficient reason for belief. Be careful about how you distinguish knowledge and belief.

I just edited the question. The reason why person A believes so is that John did not let them know.

 

[jutfrank]

Re: Third conditional to talk about unknown past situations

Right. The logic of sentence 6 is that since John did not let him know, he could not have taken the car. This is deductive reasoning, which is one way of arriving at knowledge. That is to say that person A knows that John did not take the car. Whether the premises from which the conclusion derives are sound is another matter.

 

[NAL123]

Re: Third conditional to talk about unknown past situations

Right. The logic of sentence 6 is that since John did not let him know, he could not have taken the car. This is deductive reasoning, which is one way of arriving at knowledge. That is to say that person A knows that John did not take the car. Whether the premises from which the conclusion derives are sound is another matter.

What is said in the conditional clause of the sentence underlined in the OP is neither likely nor unlikely, right? But it seems to me that you preferred the likely/real version "if he did take part..." to the unlikely/unreal version "if he had taken part..."

Q: Should we always consider the conditional clause of a conditional sentence as real/likely if the context surrounding the sentence does not give any hints about the "realness/unrealness" of the situation?

 

[jutfrank]

Re: Third conditional to talk about unknown past situations

What is said in the conditional clause of the sentence underlined in the OP is neither likely nor unlikely, right? But it seems to me that you preferred the likely/real version "if he did take part..." to the unlikely/unreal version "if he had taken part..."

It isn't a matter of preference. The original sentence is not correct. As we've said, you need a real conditional there (If he did take part, ...). I don't understand your question about it being likely or unlikely.

Q: Should we always consider the conditional clause of a conditional sentence as real/likely if the context surrounding the sentence does not give any hints about the "realness/unrealness" of the situation?

I don't fully understand what you're asking. The context will pretty much always make the meaning clear.

 

[NAL123]

It isn't a matter of preference. The original sentence is not correct. As we've said, you need a real conditional there (If he did take part, ...).

7) If he did take part, he would have come first or second.

You call this a real conditional. What is the difference between (7) and the real conditional (8) below in the context of the OP?

8) If he did take part, he probably came first or second.

 

[jutfrank]

Re: If he had taken part in that competition, he would've come either first or seco

The difference lies only in the modality of the second clause. Unlike 7, sentence 8 expresses that his coming either first or second is only probable.

The 'realness' of the first clause is identical in both. Get the meaning of the conditional clause straight first.

 

[NAL123]

The difference lies only in the modality of the second clause. Unlike 7, sentence 8 expresses that his coming either first or second is only probable.

The 'realness' of the first clause is identical in both. Get the meaning of the conditional clause straight first.

OK. Before starting this thread, I knew only about conditionals that use "real tense" or "unreal tense" (but not both) throughout the conditional sentence. This is the first time I've come across a conditional construction that mixes up both "real" and "unreal" tense.

7) If he did take part, he would have come first or second.

Clearly, the condition part talks about a real past event, while the "would" in the result clause suggests a hypothetical/unreal meaning. And I'm wondering how common this type of construction is in English.
I'm also unclear whether we use such type of mixed tense conditional only for past situations that do not affect the present or the future. Because in post #4, you didn't approve the following sentence:

If he did take part, he would soon hold a party.

Instead you suggested that I use "real tense" throughout: If he did take part, he will soon hold a party.

Consider this, please:

Person A: My brother was supposed to appear for an interview at 8am, and now it's 10. I don't know if he got the job or not. If he got/did get it, he would be very happy now.

Q) Is the underlined sentence correct? Or should I use this one: If he got/did get it, he will be very happy now.

 

[Rover_KE]

Re: If he had taken part in that competition, he would've come either first or secon

Please note that I have changed your thread title.

'Thread titles should include all or part of the word/phrase being discussed.'

 

[NAL123]

Re: If he had taken part in that competition, he would've come either first or secon

It doesn't. The would is the will/would asserting certainty.

Is the same "would" being used in:

6) Person A: If John had taken it, he would have let me know. (Please refer to post #5 for context)

 

[jutfrank]

Re: If he had taken part in that competition, he would've come either first or secon

It's going to be easy for me to confuse things, especially as I have my own particular way of explaining these things, so I'll just say this: The thought you were trying to express in the original sentence can be expressed perfectly well like this:

If he did take part, he will have come first or second.

There's no apparent need to use would at all. The second clause expresses a certainty that is contingent (thus 'conditional') on the truth of the first clause.

As I've said several times in your series of threads about modal verbs, I feel strongly that you must stick to analysing sentences that have been authentically uttered by highly proficient native speakers or model sentence specially created by teachers. It doesn't help that you try to analyse your own sentences, as I assume you've done in this thread.