[Grammar] if would, then would

[5jj]

birdeen's call is quite right, so I will restrict myself to dealing with a point directly relevant to the OP.

e2e4: I didn't say Jimmy Wales' sentence referred to past. I said that "would donate" pointed to unreal past.
5jj: 'would donate' is taken from Jimmy Wales's sentence - That's why we are discussing it! And, in that sentence it does not refer to an unreal past; it points to a possible (if not very likely) future.

 

[enthink]

Another sentence allegedly written by a native speaker, Bonnie Lam. This time it cannot be interpreted as "be willing to" so it purely illustrates the point in my OP. It looks like she meant to use either Type 3 conditional (unreal past) or Type 2/3 mixture (unreal present state + unreal past action).

And again she used would + bare infinitive in the if clause. Instead of the textbook "had" or "had had".

"If the RIAA or MPAA would have legal grounds they would have taken us to court by now."

All textbooks tell us to use:
"If the RIAA or MPAA had legal grounds they would have taken us to court by now."
or if she meant unreal past,
"If the RIAA or MPAA had had legal grounds they would have taken us to court by now."

So what is the difference between that and the standard conditionals as taught in textbooks? Is this a dialect, or a false native speaker?

Thanks and Merry Christmas to everyone!

 

[5jj]

"If the RIAA or MPAA would have legal grounds they would have taken us to court by now."

All textbooks tell us to use:
"If the RIAA or MPAA had legal grounds they would have taken us to court by now."
or if she meant unreal past,
"If the RIAA or MPAA had had legal grounds they would have taken us to court by now."

The textbooks are correct.
However, I have noticed that a lot of Americans use the 'incorrect' form. Some have told me that it's acceptable in AmE; others have told me that it is not! It's certainly unacceptable in BrE.

 

[birdeen's call]

It's an interesting question, I once wanted to ask it myself but forgot. It seems it's one of those controversial points, isn't it?

Anyway, I think this sentence would have become perfectly correct if they had chosen to use "should" instead of "would". Am I right?

"If the RIAA or MPAA should have legal grounds they would have taken us to court by now."

 

[5jj]

Anyway, I think this sentence would have become perfectly correct if they had chosen to use "should" instead of "would". Am I right?

"If the RIAA or MPAA should have legal grounds they would have taken us to court by now."

I am not so sure about it with a third conditional. I'll have to think about that.

It's certainly fine in the first and second:

If they should have legal grounds, they will/would take us to court.
Should they have legal grounds, they will/would take us to court.

 

[enthink]

The textbooks are correct.
However, I have noticed that a lot of Americans use the 'incorrect' form. Some have told me that it's acceptable in AmE; others have told me that it is not! It's certainly unacceptable in BrE.

Thanks. Any native American English speakers would like to comment?

 

[5jj]

Thanks. Any native American English speakers would like to comment?

I hope so - it would be helpful.