If he was with her that night we went away, I will definitely kill him when I see him again.

[IlyaTretyakov]

For those who isn't willing to read the whole text, I've got the simplest question: is the following sentence correct?
"If he was with her that night we went awaw, I will definitely kill him when I see him again." A real possibility in the past and its possible future consequences.

When we talk about Unreal Past using The Third Conditional we know what really happened.

Example: "If I hadn't had a lot of money, I wouldn't have gone with her that summer and we wouldn't be together now." Here I know that I had a lot of money. I know that I went with her that summer, and I know that we are together now. "If I had had a lot of money, I would have gone with her that summer and we would be together now." Here I know that I didn't have a lot of money. I know that I didn't go with her that summer, and I know that we aren't together now.

But, what if we don't know? Example: You don't know which way was chosen by your friend, but depending on it, there could be different consequences in the past, present or future. "If she chose this way, we will meet her when we get there." (Future possible consequences) "If she didn't choose this way, we won't meet her when we get there." (Future possible consequences) "If she chose the other way, she could meet/may have met wolves." (Past possible consequences)

Another example: The speaker is someone like a police investigator and is thinking about a suspect. The speaker doesn't know for sure whether he stole the money or not, but believes that if the suspect is really guilty/really stole the money, he will leave/is going to leave the country soon. "If he stole the money, he will leave the country soon." (Future possible consequences)

Another example: You are thinking about your old friend from your childhood. You don't know what have happened to her. And you say to yourself. "If she passed her exams that day, she has a lot of money now." (Present possible consequences)

One more: I was reading Dostoyevsky’s novel and there was a sentence which I tried to translate. It is something like: “If he was with her that night we went away(the night when we went away), I will definitely kill him when I see him again.” (Future possible consequences) We want to show cause and effect connection. But we don't know whether he was with her that night or not. Sometimes we can use "Present Perfect" in 'If-clause', but sometime as in this example the time period is finished so we have to use Past Tense.

To sum up: The past cannot be changed by the present and the future. The past can only be(‘could have only been’ if you like) changed by the (earlier)past. The present cannot be changed by the future. The present can be changed by the past and the (earlier)present. The future can be changed by the past, the present and the (earlier)future. This is how our universe works. There is no other way. So:

Present → Present (Zero Conditional) (Real) If you heat ice, it melts.

Present → Future (First Conditional) (Real) If she (already)has a car, she will come to the meeting.

Future → Future (First Conditional) (Real) If it rains, we will cancel the trip.

Present → Present (Second Conditional) – We know what really happens. (Unreal) If I spoke Chinese, I would go to China every year.

Present → Future (Second Conditional) – We know what really happens. (Unreal) If I were rich, I would buy a mansion.

Future → Future (Second Conditional) – We know what is going to happen. (Unreal) If I won a lottery, I would give half the money to charity.

Past → Past (Third Conditional) – We know what really happened. (Unreal) If I hadn’t studied hard, I wouldn’t have got that job.

Past → Present (Mixed of Third and Second Conditionals) – We know what really happens. (Unreal) If I hadn’t spent all her money, she would be rich now.

Past → Future (Mixed of Third and Second Conditionals) – We know what really happens. (Unreal) If she had told me, I would arrive there earlier (I know that I’m going to be late).

Can you see what is missing?

Past → Past (??) – We DO OR do NOT know what really happened. (Real) If I came home late, she got upset. (We know) If they met each other, they probably got married. (We don’t know) (They lived 6 centuries ago so we can’t say: If they HAVE met each other, they ARE probably married.)

Past → Present (??) – We do NOT know what really happened. (Real) "If she passed her exams that day, she has a lot of money now."

Past → Future (??) – We do NOT know what really happened. (Real) “If he was with her that night we went away, I will definitely kill him when I see him again.”

Now can you spot the perfect symmetry? 6 cases which are real and 6 which are unreal to fit all the laws of the universe. These are the conditionals we have in the Russian language.

We think about a real possibility in the past (something that may or may not have happened) and its possible past OR present OR future result. You do NOT know whether it happened or not, unlike The Third Conditional(or The Second Conditional), where you DO know whether it happened or not.

The questions are:

Can we use such sentences in English?

If we can, why do some English speakers say that we can't?

Are my example sentences grammatically correct in relation to English grammar?

What do we call them (Which conditional are they)?

These questions are so common in my country because in the Russian language we use such conditionals all the time especially in literature. A lot of people ask the same questions but can't find out the answer.

Thank you thorough reader! I hope this is going to be clear for everyone.
I really can't make it shorter. What I can do is set only one question. The question is: Can we use the ''missing'' types of conditionals?

 

[5jj]

When we talk about Unreal Past using The Third Conditional we know what really happened.

Example: "If I hadn't had a lot of money, I wouldn't have gone with her that summer and we wouldn't be together now." Here I know that I had a lot of money. I know that I went with her that summer, and I know that we are together now. "If I had had a lot of money, I would have gone with her that summer and we would be together now." Here I know that I didn't have a lot of money. I know that I didn't go with her that summer, and I know that we aren't together now.

Welcome to the forum, IlyaTretyakov.

I am going to look at your post one part at a time. There is far too much in your post to deal with in one response.

Note that in your first set of examples, you have both third conditionals (e.g., "If I hadn't had a lot of money, I wouldn't have gone with her that summer") and mixed conditionals (e.g., "If I hadn't had a lot of money, we wouldn't be together now").

However, rather than trying to slot all conditional sentences into the traditional five patterns (zero, first, second, third and mixed), we would do better to consider what they are doing. Your examples are about an unreal hypothetical past situation (normally expressed with the past perfect, expressing distancing in both time and reality) with unreal hypothetical past and present/universal-time consequences (normally expressed with the past tense, expressing distancing only in reality).

 

[5jj]

"If she chose this way, we will meet her when we get there." (Future possible consequences)

"If she didn't choose this wcould meetay, we won't meet her when we get there." (Future possible consequences)

In those two, we have a real possible past situation with real future consequences.

"If she chose the other way, she could meet/may have met wolves." (Past possible consequences)

Here we way a real possible past situation with a real possible future consequence (could meet) or a real possible past consequence (may have met).

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

Welcome to the forum, IlyaTretyakov.

I am going to look at your post one part at a time. There is far too much i your post to deal with in one response.

Thank you very much for your help! This question has been bothering me since I started learning English. The main questions are down the text.
If I can only ask one it would be: Can we use the ''missing'' types of conditionals according to the rules of grammar?

 

[5jj]

Well, there aren't any 'missing conditionals'. I'll work my way through your original post when I have more time later today.

 

[emsr2d2]

I don't have time to deal with such a long post either. However, please note that I have changed your thread title. Titles must include some/all of the words/phrases/sentences you are asking us about. The topic and/or request should appear only in the main body of your post.

 

[jutfrank]

I'll gladly allow 5jj to continue with this thread but I'd just like to make a comment about your general approach to understanding.

To sum up: The past cannot be changed by the present and the future. The past can only be(‘could have only been’ if you like) changed by the (earlier)past. The present cannot be changed by the future. The present can be changed by the past and the (earlier)present. The future can be changed by the past, the present and the (earlier)future. This is how our universe works. There is no other way.

I don't quite agree with the bold part. What you're talking about here is logic, not the universe itself. When we use a conditional sentence to express a logical deduction of the type if P then Q, there is no causality involved. Yes, you can understand that there is some 'priority' going on (i.e., P must be true 'first' in order for Q to be true) but it is certainly not the case that the arrow of time has any bearing on the logic. This is logical, not temporal, priority.

Therefore, your effort of framing all this within the context of time is, although very interesting, not quite the right way to understand things fully.

Look at this deduction made by a homicide detective:

If he was not in the room, he couldn't have killed her.

The first clause expresses a real past possibility. We don't know whether he was in the room. The second clause expresses a logical conclusion based on the truth validity of the proposition (he was not in the room) expressed in the first clause. Yes, it's true that there is a temporal priority in that he would have had to be in the room first in order to kill her, but that isn't necessary for the deduction to be made. You can even make the logic 'flow' backwards in time—consider the following deduction:

If he flees the country tomorrow, he couldn't have killed her.

Here a future action logically concludes the truth validity of a past real possibility. No causality involved at all.

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

If he flees the country tomorrow, he couldn't have killed her.

Maybe, you meant:

"If he flees the country tomorrow, he must have killed her." This meaning?

Yes. I can understand it. Thank you for the very interesting example.
To be honest, I'd already thought about it, but I didn't wanted to dilute the already long text for the question.
Yes, sometimes we can draw a conclusion about the past from the future. But it never means that the future influence the past. This is what I'm talking about.
Thank you for your example, again.

 

[5jj]

A few more comments from me:

Present → Present (Zero Conditional) (Real) If you heat ice, it melts.

Fine, but you can also say If you heat ice, it will melt. Here 'will' suggests that this is a characteristic of ice.

Present → Future (First Conditional) (Real) If she (already) has a car, she will come to the meeting.

Future → Future (First Conditional) (Real) If it rains, we will cancel the trip.

Fine, if by 'real' you mean that a real possibility is being presented.

Present → Present (Second Conditional) – We know what really happens. (Unreal) If I spoke Chinese, I would go to China every year.

Rather than 'We know what really happens', I'd say 'We present a hypothetical situation as unreal'.

I'll stop there so that other members can comment on what has been said so far, and you can ask questions about anything that's not clear.

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

'll stop there so that other members can comment on what has been said so far, and you can ask questions about anything that's not clear.

I think it's because of my bad English. I couldn't explain what I meant. I'm sorry.

If I set my question simply, I would say: there are several typical conditionals in English(0,1,2,3mixed), but not everything fits to them.
What if we want to speak about a real popossibility in the past (something that may or may not have happened) and its possible present or future consequences?
Some of such examples are down the main text with double question marks. (??)

 

[jutfrank]

Maybe, you meant:

"If he flees the country tomorrow, he must have killed her." This meaning?

Yes, that makes more sense. I actually meant to say If he doesn't flee the country tomorrow... Anyway, you've understood what I meant, so I'll leave my post unamended.

Yes, sometimes we can draw a conclusion about the past from the future. But it never means that the future influence the past. This is what I'm talking about.

Yes, I understand. My point is really to suggest that the key to understanding the meaning of tricky conditional sentences is the notion of possibility and its different kinds, rather than the notion of causality.

 

[5jj]

If I set my question simply, I would say: there are several typical conditionals in English(0,1,2,3mixed), but not everything fits to them.
What if we want to speak about a real possibility in the past (something that may or may not have happened) and its possible present or future consequences?
Some of such examples are down the main text with double question marks. (??)

That takes us on to part of your original post that I haven't come to yet. Before we look at that, have you any questions about what jutfrank and i have said so far?

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

have you any questions about what jutfrank and i have said so far?

The only thing that interests me now is my main question about those types of conditionals that I called 'missing'.

 

[5jj]

I am sorry I wasted your time trying to deal with the first part of your long OP.
I am sorry I wasted my time trying to deal with the first part of your long OP.

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

I am sorry I wasted your time trying to deal with the first part of your long OP.
I am sorry I wasted my time trying to deal with the first part of your long OP.

The first part was written by me in order to explain everything related to my question. So that nobody would tell me how to construct "typical conditionals 0,1,2,3,mixed". Because it's not the point. I already knew them.

 

[emsr2d2]

The first part was written by me in order to explain everything related to my question, so that nobody would tell me how to construct "typical conditionals 0, 1, 2, 3, mixed". Because it's not That wasn't the point. I already knew about them.

Then you should have made that very clear! You should have simply asked your question and put a little note at the end saying "I already understand everything else about conditionals".

It would be nice if you would show some appreciation for the amount of time people already spent on that very long post.

Note my corrections above. Until you're very proficient in English, don't try to start sentences with "So" or "Because", and remember to put a space after every comma.

 

[jutfrank]

The questions are:

Can we use such sentences in English?

Yes.

If we can, why do some English speakers say that we can't?

Who says that? Maybe you should ask them.

Are my example sentences grammatically correct in relation to English grammar?

Yes.

What do we call them (Which conditional are they)?

I call them real past conditionals (referring to the condition clause).

Please remember that you can use the Thank and Like buttons to show appreciation for our time, and to encourage us to answer any more questions you may have.

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

I call them real past conditionals (referring to the condition clause).

Thank you very much for your help!

I'd like to define more precisely.
Do we still call them 'real past conditionals' even if we have consequences in the present or in the future?

 

[Tdol]

Past → Present (??) – We do NOT know what really happened. (Real) "If she passed her exams that day, she has a lot of money now."

If she did rob the bank as people say, she's a lucky woman as she's rich and hasn't been charged.

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

If she did rob the bank as people say, she's a lucky woman as she's rich and hasn't been charged.

A very interesting example! Thank you.
Do we need to use the emphatic "did" or we can say "If she robbed..." ?