[Grammar] If he went there, he saw/will/would/could/might/may see her.

[Matthew Wai]

1. If he went there, he would see her.
2. If he went there, he will see her.
3. If he went there, he saw her.
4. If he went there, he could see her.
5. If he went there, he might see her.
6. If he went there, he may see her.

I think 'went' in 1 is the past subjunctive, while the ones in 2 and 3 are the simple past.
How about the ones in 4, 5, and 6?

 

[Matthew Wai]

if you wish for some reason to use the label

The reason is that the indicative and the subjunctive here does and does not refer to the past respectively.

 

[Matthew Wai]

'If he went there, he may/can see her.'

'Went', an indicative here, refers to the past because 'may/can see' could not refer to the past, right?

 

[Raymott]

If most speakers of BrE can't distinguish between an indicative and a subjunctive, there is no significance in the labels. It's context that tells us the time and likelihood, not mood.

The problem with this is that it leaves out the student. Many students have the subjunctive in their L1. They know what it means, and they're asking for clarification of its meaning in English. It is used in English, whether English native speakers know it or not, and some of us in AusE, and AmE recognise it when it occurs.
You can call "If it were ..." a use of the past tense, but the student knows it isn't. This can cause problems.
It's also likely that most English-language speakers couldn't differentiate an adjective from an adverb. But I don't think teachers should stop using those terms.

 

[Raymott]

'If he went there, he may/can see her.'

'Went', an indicative here, refers to the past because 'may/can see' could not refer to the past, right?

Do you mean 'went' is subjunctive? Your sentence is confusing in a few respects. You seem to be saying that since 'may/can' can't refer to the past, then 'went' has to - which is a bit odd.
"If he went there, he might have seen her." This all refers to the past.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Do you mean 'went' is subjunctive?

I mean 'went' is NOT subjunctive in 'If he went there, he may/can see her'. Am I right?

"If he went there, he might have seen her." This all refers to the past.

The 'went' above is not subjunctive either, and the speaker does not know whether he went there. Am I right?

 

[Raymott]

The reality is that in modern English the past subjunctive is dead (except for BE). This mood is no more. It has ceased to be. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late mood. Bereft of life, it rests in peace.

No, it's just resting. They tire easily, the Subjunctives.

 

[Raymott]

I mean 'went' is NOT subjunctive in 'If he went there, he may/can see her'. Am I right?

"If he goes there, he may see her." This is present indicative.
"If he went there, he might have seen her." Past indicative.
"If he went there, he might see her". Why is this not subjunctive?

(Never mind about 'might' and 'may'. Apparently these are used differently in different places.)

 

[Matthew Wai]

"If he went there, he might see her". Why is this not subjunctive?

No one said it was not subjunctive. Piscean said it was either subjunctive or indicative in post #2.
And he said it was indicative in 'If he went there, he may see her', so I think it is also indicative in 'If he went there, he can see her'.

 

[Raymott]

No one said it was not subjunctive.

What do you mean no one said it was not subjective? I'm trying to clarify this direct quote of yours:
"I mean 'went' is NOT subjunctive in 'If he went there, he may/can see her'.

PS: It doesn't matter. You can drop it. But why say something, and then say that no one said it? Perhaps you meant something other than what you said.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Things are getting confusing.

No one said it was not subjunctive.

The 'it' above refers to the 'went' below.

"If he went there, he might see her".

The above conditional sentence is different from the one below, because 'might' is different from 'may/can'.

I mean 'went' is NOT subjunctive in 'If he went there, he may/can see her'.

 

[jutfrank]

Things are getting confusing.

Matthew

It occurs to me that in trying to understand this language point, you are approaching it from the wrong direction. I remember a similar discussion involving Piscean, ManofManners and myself several weeks ago.

I think your post #5 of this thread is the one that has sparked the confusion. It doesn't make much sense to me to make up an unnatural example sentence in your head, and then to ask us what it means. We can at best only interpret what it could mean. Meaning doesn't originate from language in itself, but rather the language carries the meaning from producer to receiver.

To ask whether a sentence is subjunctive or indicative, or whether it refers to past or future or whatever is really to ask about the intention in the mind of the producer of that sentence. You cannot sensibly do this with an artificial sentence.

You understand that with natural language, listeners interpret the meaning of what they hear based on not just vocab and grammar but also other clues. To better understand the complexities of conditional sentences, try looking at only authentic examples in full context.

 

[Matthew Wai]

In the following context, where the deadline is unknown, does 'submitted' refer to the past or the future?

'Successful applicants will get a giveaway while stock lasts, so if he submitted an application before the deadline, he may / can have a chance of getting it.'

 

[Matthew Wai]

I made it up a few minutes ago.

 

[Matthew Wai]

'If he submitted an application before the deadline, he may / can have a chance of getting it.'

The deadline already passed, so 'submitted' refers to the past. 'May/can' refers to the present.
If 'might/could' is used instead of 'may/can', it becomes the second conditional, and 'submitted' refers to the future, and the deadline is in the future too.

 

[jutfrank]

If 'might/could' is used instead of 'may/can', it becomes the second conditional, and 'submitted' refers to the future, and the deadline is in the future too.

Matthew, I believe you haven't understood what we're saying. A sentence cannot 'become the second conditional'.

 

[Matthew Wai]

The sentence below is the second conditional, and 'submitted' refers to the future, and the deadline is in the future too.

'If he submitted an application before the deadline, he might / could have a chance of getting it.'

 

[jutfrank]

The sentence below is the second conditional, and 'submitted' refers to the future, and the deadline is in the future too.

'If he submitted an application before the deadline, he might / could have a chance of getting it.'

You're approaching this from the wrong direction. It doesn't refer to anything because it's an artificial, unnatural, meaningless sentence.

The message comes first, then the words are chosen to deliver the message.