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

[jutfrank]

Do we still call them 'real past conditionals' even if we have consequences in the present or in the future?

I do, yes. I actually make a living teaching people these things and I've never had a cause to use any other terms. The words 'real' and 'past' are sufficient to describe the condition clause. I don't need to call the main clause anything—I just describe the form and meaning.

Do we need to use the emphatic "did" or we can say "If she robbed..." ?

The did is not 'necessary' but it does do good emphatic work to bifurcate the two possibilities. In speech, it would be stressed to show this.

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

I do, yes. I actually make a living teaching people these things and I've never had a cause to use any other terms. The words 'real' and 'past' are sufficient to describe the condition clause. I don't need to call the main clause anything—I just describe the form and meaning.



The did is not 'necessary' but it does do good emphatic work to bifurcate the two possibilities. In speech, it would be stressed to show this.

Ok, it's much clearer now. Thank you.

What about "to be" in the past? "If he was with her... "

"If he did be with her... "?? Is this right or it doesn't work this way?

 

[jutfrank]

What about "to be" in the past? "If he was with her... "

"If he did be with her... "?? Is this right or it doesn't work this way?

No, you can only stress auxiliaries. In cases where BE is the only verb, we treat it like an auxiliary:

If he was with her ...

 

[5jj]

Auxiliary DO is used with BE only on emphatic and negative imperatives: Do be careful, Don't be silly.