visit a garden in the north, and you could be ...

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Hi,

I was told that an imperative followed by "and" and a sentence could mean "if ... then ...."
For example, "Give John 10 dollars, and he will ask for 100 dollars" means "If you give John 10 dollars, he will ask for 100 dollars."

What about the following example? Does it sound natural?

The country is famous for its rapid public transportation network. Visit a garden in the north in the morning, and you could be climbing a mountain in the south in the afternoon.

 

[emsr2d2]

Your sentence is natural but it doesn't mean "If you visit a garden in the morning, you will be climbing a mountain in the south in the afternoon".

In your first example sentence (about dollars), there is a sort of cause and effect. There is no such effect in the sentences about public transport. With the example about money, you are suggesting "John will ask you for $100 if/after you offer him $10".

 

[jutfrank]

I would say that your example just about works, yes.

However, it might be better to make the meaning a bit clearer with a little modification:

You can be visiting a garden in the north in the morning, and climbing a mountain in the south in the afternoon.

 

[Phaedrus]

Your sentence is natural but it doesn't mean "If you visit a garden in the morning, you will be climbing a mountain in the south in the afternoon".

I agree, but I do note that "could" (not "will") is used in the example in the OP. To me the sentence does mean: "If you visit a garden in the morning, you could be climbing a mountain in the south in the afternoon." I think I'd prefer "might be" or "you might find yourself climbing" instead:

Visit a garden in the north in the morning, and you might find yourself climbing a mountain in the south in the afternoon.
--> If you visit a garden in the north in the morning, you might find yourself climbing a mountain in the south in the afternoon.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

I agree, but I do note that "could" (not "will") is used in the example in the OP. To me the sentence does mean: "If you visit a garden in the morning, you could be climbing a mountain in the south in the afternoon." I think I'd prefer "might be" or "you might find yourself climbing" instead:

Visit a garden in the north in the morning, and you might find yourself climbing a mountain in the south in the afternoon.
--> If you visit a garden in the north in the morning, you might find yourself climbing a mountain in the south in the afternoon.

What kind of relation is indicated by "if" in "If you visit a garden in the north in the morning..."?

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

I would say that your example just about works, yes.

However, it might be better to make the meaning a bit clearer with a little modification:

You can be visiting a garden in the north in the morning, and climbing a mountain in the south in the afternoon.

I've noticed you said it "just about" works, which means it does not really work for you.
I don't find it natural either, because its pattern (a bare infinitive phrase with a clause connected by "and') is not used to express a causal relation as in 'Give John 10 dollars, and he will ask for more."

If it doesn't express a causal relation, what is the pattern used for?

 

[Phaedrus]

What kind of relation is indicated by "if" in "If you visit a garden in the north in the morning..."?

Obviously, in context, the "if"-clause means: "(If you) visit a garden in the north in the morning (by utilizing the rapid public transportation network for which the country referred to in the opening sentence is famous) . . . ."

 

[Phaedrus]

If it doesn't express a causal relation, what is the pattern used for?

It's used to express the relationships that the "if"-clauses of Type 1 conditionals express, the only restriction being that the first conjunct clause must refer to an action hypothetically performed by the addressee (or idealized generic addressee).

Flip the switch and the light will turn on.
Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.
Give him an inch and he'll take a mile.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

It's used to express the relationships that the "if"-clauses of Type 1 conditionals express, the only restriction being that the first conjunct clause must refer to an action hypothetically performed by the addressee (or idealized generic addressee).

Flip the switch and the light will turn on.
Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.
Give him an inch and he'll take a mile.

Your examples clearly indicate a sort of causal relation. On the other hand, the garden example does not; whether a person could be climbing a mountain in the south does not hinge on his or her visiting a garden in the north.

 

[Phaedrus]

Your examples clearly indicate a sort of causal relation. On the other hand, the garden example does not; whether a person could be climbing a mountain in the south does not hinge on his or her visiting a garden in the north.

I see what the problem is. You are looking at the second sentence as if it were in a contextual vacuum, despite your having provided the context necessary to understand it, namely, the first sentence. What the second sentence means in context of the first is this:

Use the country's rapid public transportation network (RPTN) to go to the north for a garden visit in the morning and you will enjoy the efficiency of the RPTN so much that you may take it to the south afterwards and be climbing a mountain there in the afternoon.

 

[jutfrank]

I'm interpreting the meaning simply as possibility.

The rapidity of the RPTN allows the possibility of visiting two distant places in a short timespan.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

I see what the problem is. You are looking at the second sentence as if it were in a contextual vacuum, despite your having provided the context necessary to understand it, namely, the first sentence. What the second sentence means in context of the first is this:

Use the country's rapid public transportation network (RPTN) to go to the north for a garden visit in the morning and you will enjoy the efficiency of the RPTN so much that you may take it to the south afterwards and be climbing a mountain there in the afternoon.

I did consider the preceding context. I mean, one could take some form of public transportation directly to the south, where he or she could climb a mountain, without first visiting a garden in the north.


Unlike other examples, there is no dependency between the two events in this case.

 

[Phaedrus]

I did consider the preceding context. I mean, one could take some form of public transportation directly to the south, where he or she could climb a mountain, without first visiting a garden in the north.


Unlike other examples, there is no dependency between the two events in this case.

The sentences are normal and correct and will have an obvious meaning to anyone who is familiar with the tourist brochure genre.

If you don't want to see it, I don't know what more I can say.

 

[Phaedrus]

The rapidity of the RPTN allows the possibility of visiting two distant places in a short timespan.

Jutfrank has here expressed (without contextual particulars) what I expressed in the long blue sentence (with contextual particulars).

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

The issue is how to generalize about the typical examples, i.e., ones clearly indicating a causal relation, and the garden example:


Flip the switch and the light will turn on.
Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.
Give him an inch and he'll take a mile.


It is useful for EFL purposes to assign a generalized meaning and function to the pattern "bare infinitive, and S + V."

A learner would have no problem with "By riding high-speed rail, for example, one could visit a garden in the north in the morning and climb a mountain in the south in the afternoon" since, unlike the said pattern, no causal relation is implied by this paraphrase.

 

[Phaedrus]

A learner would have no problem with "By riding high-speed rail, for example, one could visit a garden in the north in the morning and climb a mountain in the south in the afternoon" since, unlike the said pattern, no causal relation is implied by this paraphrase.

You seem to be getting hung up on causality. Would it help you if the sentence were (totally unnecessarily) adjusted like this?

Take the train to one part of the country in the morning and you MAY decide to take it to another part of the country in the afternoon.

What is the causal link between taking the train hither and then deciding to take it thither? Why, it will be your love of the train and its totally awesome speed! Think of a Coca-Cola commercial. Drink the soda and you'll get the girl. But where is the causal relationship? The advertisers don't want you to ask.

 

[jutfrank]

It is useful for EFL purposes to assign a generalized meaning and function to the pattern "bare infinitive, and S + V."

In my view, it is not very useful to try to assign usages to such a grammatical form as this. I think the best you can do as a teacher is to show that it can be used to express causality, and then to provide usefully clear examples such as some of those we've been using here. Any sense of causality comes from more than the structure alone.

 

[Phaedrus]

I have just looked at what Renaat Declerck and Susan Reed have to say about this interesting construction in Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis (Mouton De Gruyter, 2001). We have been talking about one type of what they call paratactic conditionals (the other type uses "or"), which they say are almost always interpreted as "actualization conditionals" (roughly speaking, the Type 1 variety).

They do not speak of causality specifically in reference to this construction, apart from whatever implications of causality may be inherent in their "actualization conditional" label. Rather, they emphasize how the construction is used to express promises or threats. I'd say that, in the example in the OP, we are clearly dealing with a kind of promise. Here is one vivid illustration they give of the difference:

(831) Do that and I'll punish you!

Whereas Do that or I'll punish you! is equivalent to 'If you don't do that, I'll punish you!', (831) means 'If you do that, I'll punish you'. Both sentences are interpreted as threats (or warnings). [p. 403]

Here are some other examples, with their respective interpretations, that Declerck and Reed give on page 403.

(834a) Open this door and you will die! (=threat)
(834b) Do that again and you can clear your desk! (=threat)
(834c) Open this door and you will enter Paradise! (=promise)
(835a) Open this letter and I will never trust you again! (=threat)
(835b) Help me carry these and I will give you a fiver. (=promise)

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Whether it is a promise or threat that the paratactic conditional is concerned with, a sense of causality still seems involved; all the examples of the pattern quoted so far (except for the garden example, of course) basically say, "if you do such and such, such and such will happen as a consequence."


However, this kind of causality is not meant to be an objective construct. In the Coca-Cola example, none in their right mind would believe the drink would make a woman fall in love with a man; but for the line to be a promise, that belief is somehow implied, along with the ancillary assumption that drinking the soda makes a man look cool, and women in general like cool guys.


In contrast, the garden example has a harder time as a promise; without ancillary assumptions, it is hard to view "visit a garden in the north in the morning" as a precondition for a person's climbing a mountain in the south in the afternoon. If we fused into the precondition, as you do, the assumption that one takes some form of public transportation to a garden in the north, then the inference would make perfect sense. Alternatively, it might be far clearer to spell out that assumption as the precondition:


The country is famous for its rapid public transportation network. Take the express train, and you could visit a garden in the north in the morning and climb a mountain in the south in the afternoon.


I posted the garden example of the OP on alt.usage.english, and an Australian participant in the thread offered the following remark:


"It sounds almost natural, to the point where you're left wondering for a while why you have this feeling that there's something wrong with it. The fault is the lack of cause and effect. Are you really saying that visiting the garden is what caused you to climb the mountain?"


As I see it, the garden example in the OP, even though it sounds OK to some speakers, is not universally accepted among native speakers. A textbook writer trying to introduce the paratactic conditional would probably either remove it or rewrite it.

 

[Phaedrus]

In contrast, the garden example has a harder time as a promise; without ancillary assumptions, it is hard to view "visit a garden in the north in the morning" as a precondition for a person's climbing a mountain in the south in the afternoon.

The sentence uses "could," not "will." It is speaking of a FREE decision that one MIGHT choose to make after riding the train north.

If we fused into the precondition, as you do, the assumption that one takes some form of public transportation to a garden in the north, then the inference would make perfect sense.

To try to interpret the second sentence as if the first wasn't there and bore no relation to the sentence that follows it is absurd.

The country is famous for its rapid public transportation network. Take the express train, and you could visit a garden in the north in the morning and climb a mountain in the south in the afternoon.

Any intelligent reader will grasp that "Visit a garden . . ." in the second sentence means "by utilizing the country's RPTN to get there."

I posted the garden example of the OP on alt.usage.english, and an Australian participant in the thread offered the following remark:


"It sounds almost natural, to the point where you're left wondering for a while why you have this feeling that there's something wrong with it. The fault is the lack of cause and effect. Are you really saying that visiting the garden is what caused you to climb the mountain?"

Again, the sentence uses "could," not "will," and it is speaking of a free decision that one might choose to make after doing something else. I disagree wholeheartedly with the Australian's sense that something is wrong with the example as written.

As I see it, the garden example in the OP, even though it sounds OK to some speakers, is not universally accepted among native speakers. A textbook writer trying to introduce the paratactic conditional would probably either remove it or rewrite it.

As you can see, I don't see it that way.