If they made / had made it to the garage...

[BestBuddy]

A: The three of us were working the crops when that ship showed up. We just saw it and ran. I don't know what happened to the rest of the crew.
B: They were by the garage. Over near the spaceport. Right where that ship came down. No way they survived.
C: You don't know that! If they made / had made it to the garage, they may have had a fighting chance!

Which one should we use?
If we use "had made" it fits to the third conditional, but the third conditional is about unreal past (where we know for sure whether it did or did not happen).
If we use "made" it makes sense to me since it's a real situation in the past (where we don't know whether it happened or not), but it doesn't fit to any of 0, 1, 2, 3 and mixed conditionals.

 

[5jj]

If we use "made" it makes sencse to me since it's a real situation in the past (where we don't know whether it happened or not),

You are right.

but it doesn't fit to any of 0, 1, 2, 3 and mixed conditionals.

Those five patterns, the ones frequently taught to students, are merely the most common patterns. There are actually many possibilie tense-patterns in conditional sentences.

 

[BestBuddy]

You are right.

Those five patterns, the ones frequently taught to students, are merely the most common patterns. There are actually many possibilie tense-patterns in conditional sentences.

How can we call/name that kind of conditional? The first one, the real past, the mixed?

If they made it to the garage, they may have had a fighting chance!

 

[jutfrank]

How can we call/name that kind of conditional?

Who are 'we'? Teachers?

I'd say the 'if'-clause expresses a real condition and the result clause expresses a speculation based on the truth of the condition.

Don't worry about what to call these sentences. Just focus on what they mean, and the forms they use to express the meaning.

 

[BestBuddy]

Who are 'we'? Teachers?

I mean when (for example) I want to share my opinion with somebody about not usual conditionals, how can I call that kind?

"There are two kinds of conditionals in the past in English. The third one which is used to describe unreal past, and the (?) which is used to speculate about the past (when we don't know what really happened)."

 

[jutfrank]

I mean when (for example) I want to share my opinion with somebody about not usual conditionals, how can I call that kind?

Share your opinion with whom? The terms you would use would obviously depend entirely on who that person was.

"There are two kinds of conditionals in the past in English. The third one which is used to describe unreal past, and the (?) which is used to speculate about the past (when we don't know what really happened)."

Is that a quote? Who said it and what does it mean? In what way does it make sense to think of there being only two kinds of conditionals? What are those two kinds? Are you talking about meaning, or about form, or both?

 

[BestBuddy]

Share your opinion with whom? The terms you would use would obviously depend entirely on who that person was.

For example, with my teacher. Anyone. It doesn't matter. When I say "the past simple", I don't think who I'm talking to.

Is that a quote? Who said it and what does it mean? In what way does it make sense to think of there being only two kinds of conditionals? What are those two kinds? Are you talking about meaning, or about form, or both?

That's my example. I mean two kind of conditionals in the past (generally speaking). Because some people think there's only ONE conditional used for past events (the third one) which is unreal. Sometimes when I'm talking with my friends (who are studying English), I want them to understand that speculating about the past we can't use the third one. So, that's why I say there are two. It's generalization that makes understanding easier.

So, how's it better to call/name them?

• If they made it to the garage (I don't know whether they made it or not), they may have had a fighting chance!
• Accept this answer if it solved your problem or was the most helpful (I don't know whether it did or not).
• Your password has been successfully changed. If this was not you, please change your password immediately to secure your account.

 

[jutfrank]

For example, with my teacher.

Then let him/her choose the terminology.

Anyone. It doesn't matter.

It absolutely does. If that person doesn't know what you mean by a certain term, it probably isn't a good idea to use it.

When I say "the past simple", I don't think who I'm talking to.

You should.

That's my example. I mean two kind of conditionals in the past (generally speaking).

Do you mean real and unreal?

Because some people think there's only ONE conditional used for past events (the third one) which is unreal.

Well, they're wrong.

Sometimes when I'm talking with my friends (who are studying English), I want them to understand that speculating about the past we can't use the third one.

I assume you mean the one with an unreal condition in the condition clause and a past result in the result clause. (What's commonly called a 'third' conditional).

Be careful here. You can speculate about the past using third conditionals.

So, that's why I say there are two. It's generalization that makes understanding easier.

I'm not sure about that. If you're talking about real and unreal conditions, then yes, I completely agree. But I think that when you say 'conditional', you're talking about sentence types, right? In other words, you're talking about the logical relation between condition and result.

So, how's it better to call/name them?

• If they made it to the garage (I don't know whether they made it or not), they may have had a fighting chance!

Call it a real condition with a speculative result.

 

[BestBuddy]

Do you mean real and unreal?

Yes. Two types = one is real and the other is unreal.

Be careful here. You can speculate about the past using third conditionals.

I mean speculating about events that actually may have taken place in the past but we don't know that for sure. For example I'd never write, "Accept this answer if it had solved your problem or had been the most helpful." I think the only one correct is, "Accept this answer if it solved your problem or was the most helpful.".

Call it a real condition with a speculative result.

Thanks!

 

[BestBuddy]

I'd like to clarify one thing. How should we backshift in reported speech the real past conditionals?

For examples this sentence:

• If they made it to the garage, they may have had a fighting chance!

 

[emsr2d2]

I'd like to clarify one thing. How should we backshift in reported speech the peal past conditionals?

For examples example, this sentence:

• If they made it to the garage, they may have had a fighting chance!

What does "peal" mean above?
Your example sentence should start "If they had made it ...".

 

[BestBuddy]

What does "peal" mean above?
Your example sentence should start "If they had made it ...".

Please, read the posts above. I'm not talking about unreal conditionals.

A: The three of us were working the crops when that ship showed up. We just saw it and ran. I don't know what happened to the rest of the crew.
B: They were by the garage. Over near the spaceport. Right where that ship came down. No way they survived.
C: You don't know that! If they made it to the garage, they may have had a fighting chance!

• If they made it to the garage (I don't know whether they made it or not), they may have had a fighting chance!
• Accept this answer if it solved your problem or was the most helpful (I don't know whether it did or not).
• Your password has been successfully changed. If this was not you, please change your password immediately to secure your account.

View attachment 4674View attachment 4676

 

[5jj]

I'd like to clarify one thing. How should we backshift in reported speech the peal past conditionals?

For examples this sentence:

• If they made it to the garage, they may have had a fighting chance!

i wouldn't backshift there; Fred said that if they made it to the garage they may have had a fighting chance.

 

[5jj]

When discussing the use of 'past' tenses in conditional sentences, it is important to understand the situations the speaker is talking about. If, for the sake of simplicity, we ignore progressive and modal forms, there are two 'past' forms that can appear in the protasis (/antecedent/if-) clause: past simple and past perfect. Dependingon context, these may refer to real (factual), hypothetical or counterfactual situations in past, present, or future times. In the example sentences below about past-time situations, I have given only one of the many tense/aspect/modal forms possible in the apodosis (/consequent/then-) clause:

1.
Bill: John caught the 18.42 train yesterday .
Sue: If he caught the 18.42 (accepted fact) , he will have arrived home before midnight.

2.
Bill: I don't know what train John caught yesterday,
Sue: If he caught the 18.42 (possibility), he will have arrived home before midnight.

3.
Bill: John caught the 20.12 train yesterday.
Sue: If he had caught the 18.42 (counterfactual hypthesis). he would have arrived home before midnight.

4.
Bill: I don't know what train John caught yesterday.
Sue: If he had caught the 18.42 (hypothetical situation), he would have arrived home by midnight. Let's see. Ah, yes. The CCTV shows him coming through the front door at 11.50.

5.
Bill: I don't know what train John caught yesterday.
Sue: If he had caught the 18.42 (hypothetical situation), he would have arrived home by midnight. Let's see. No. The CCTV shows him coming through the front door at one-thirty, so he must have caught the 20.12..

 

[emsr2d2]

Please, read the posts above. I'm not talking about unreal conditionals.

I shouldn't have to read the rest of the thread. I asked you what you meant by "peal". Your answer should have been "That was a typo. I should have written real."

 

[Tdol]

i wouldn't backshift there; Fred said that if they made it to the garage they may have had a fighting chance.

It's OK to do so, though.

 

[BestBuddy]

Some native English teachers told me that the third conditional shows unreal situation and from the sentence using the third conditional itself we can get the information about what happened: "If he hadn't done it, he would..." — He did it, and we know it just from the sentence.
"If I hadn't studied hard at school, I would..." - here from the sentence itself we know that "I" studied hard at school.
This is why I think it's very important for us, in order to make language we speak clearer and better, to use the third conditional only when we know what really happened.

So, I'd say there are three "conditional" situations in the past.

1. If = when ("if" instead of "when" just shows that it happened not very often)

• When I got home late, she got upset. (One specific occasion)
• When I got home late, she got upset. (Many times in the past)
• If I got home late, she got upset. (Not so many times in the past)

2. If = since, because, as, seeing as

Bill: John caught the 18.42 train yesterday .

• Sue: If he caught the 18.42 (accepted fact) , he will have arrived home before midnight.

3. If = if
3a. (we don't know what happened) (unreal)

Bill: I don't know what train John caught yesterday,

• Sue: If he caught the 18.42 (possibility), he will have arrived home before midnight.

3b. (we know what happened) (real)

Bill: John caught the 20.12 train yesterday.

• Sue: If he had caught the 18.42 (counterfactual hypthesis). he would have arrived home before midnight.

Sue: If he caught the 18.42 (accepted fact), he will have arrived home before midnight.
Sue: If he caught the 18.42 (possibility), he will have arrived home before midnight.

As you can see above, sometimes "1. if = since, because, as" and "3a. if = if (real)" sentences are the same and we can understand what the person means only from the context.



For the reason I wrote at the top of this post I do believe it's not right to use the unreal third conditional for the situations where we don't know what happened, otherwise the person we're talking to will get the wrong information unless we give him extra context.

4.
Bill: I don't know what train John caught yesterday.
Sue: If he had caught the 18.42, he would will / may have arrived home by midnight. Let's see. Ah, yes. The CCTV shows him coming through the front door at 11.50.
5.
Bill: I don't know what train John caught yesterday.
Sue: If he had caught the 18.42, he would will / may have arrived home by midnight. Let's see. No. The CCTV shows him coming through the front door at one-thirty, so he must have caught the 20.12..

I don't think anyone would ever write: "If you had liked this lesson," or "If this hadn't been you," in the situations where you don't know what happened as below:

 

[5jj]

Some native English teachers told me that the third conditional shows unreal situation and from the sentence using the third conditional itself we can get the information about what happened: "If he hadn't done it, he would..." — He did it, and we know it just from the sentence.
"If I hadn't studied hard at school, I would..." - here from the sentence itself we know that "I" studied hard at school.

That is usually true. However, I gave you an example, the fifth example in post #14, in which it is not true.

This is why I think it's very important for us, in order to make language we speak clearer and better, to use the third conditional only when we know what really happened.

We cannot put articicial restrictions on the way people use tenses and aspects.

• When I got home late, she got upset. (Many times in the past)
• If I got home late, she got upset. (Not so many times in the past)

The (slight) difference in meaning between 'when' and 'if' in those sentences has nothing to do with frequency.

For the reason I wrote at the top of this post I do believe it's not right to use the unreal third conditional for the situations where we don't know what happened, otherwise the person we're talking to will get the wrong information unless we give him extra context.

But we do present the necessary context, as I did.

Speakers use words, tenses, aspects, other grammatical structures as well as facial expression, body language and tone and intonation to express meaning in context. These things, on their own, rarely convey full meaning.

Here are two examples I gave in another thread earlier today:

i. If Andrea cooks, I will wash up.
ii. If Andrea cooked, I would wash up.

[iii) could be a predictive utterance referring to a future time situation (the traditional 'firs' condition), or a factual contion referring to a general-time situation.
[ii] could be a factual utterance about a past-time situation, a counterfactual utterance about a general-time situation, or a hypothetcal utterance about a future-time situation.

My point is that we cannot tell what situations those two sentences refer to unless we have context.

 

[Glizdka]

Hello, BestBuddy!

You're treading on thin ice if you're trying to find the absolute rule for how we should name different flavors of conditionals in English. The most agreed on categorization is 0, 1, 2, 3, and mysteriously sounding mix, all of which you already know. However, this isn't the whole picture.

Grammarians tend to talk about only these five in their textbooks because they're the easiest to distinguish, the most reliable to make a test with, and the most valuable when teaching something actually useful in everyday speech. You can't blame them for doing that. The other ones are less well-behaved from a teacherly perspective. They're difficult to distinguish and learners often fail to learn how to use them, not to mention they're simply not very useful because you rarely encounter situations in which they are appropriate. That's why this area often gets left out by textbooks.

When I want to talk about my childhood trauma caused by not being allowed to go to amusement parks because my mother would freak out if I even mentioned rollercoasters, can we call it the second conditional? Is there anything hypothetical about it? It does use the past, grammatically, and there's a would in my sentence, so it looks like the second conditional. There is something different about this sentence, though, and I don't like thinking of it as the second conditional. I'd much prefer to have a separate name for this kind of sentence structure, but what should I name it? Maybe backshifted conditional zero; has a nice ring to it.

The thing is that native speakers don't proactively think about what grammatical structure they are going to use. You just use words how you think they should be used as long as communication is achieved. There are even some patterns that are considered incorrect by teachers, but nonetheless used every day by native speakers. If I would've known they existed when I was just starting to learn English, I wouldn't have freaked out that there was something I was doing wrong with my use of the third conditional.

You've ventured into the uncharted territory of structures that are either uncategorized, or those that have been categorized, but differently by different grammarians. We all have very strong opinions about this. Keep that in mind when reading posts from those who have most likely spent more time than you on trying to make sense of it, and try to get as much as you can from learning how they see it from their perspective. Don't venture too deep into this madness, though. You may get lost in the darkness.

 

[5jj]

You're treading on thin ice if you're trying to find the absolute rule for how we should name different flavors of conditionals in English.

Very true.

If you are interested in the way I like to label conditional sentences, BestBuddy, try the series of articles beginning with this one.