Talk:English conditional sentences

In addition to the numbered conditionals, there exist other forms: It is possible to put a modal in the condition clause: If you'll just take a seat, the doctor will see you shortly. Verbless conditionals are possible: Your money back if not completely satisfied! Mathematical conditions also exist: Pythagoras's theorem states that in a right angled triangle abc where c is the hypotenuse and a and b are the other two sides a^2 + b^2 = c^2. Thus: If a=3 and b=4, c=5. (And that is a purely mathematical conditional). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.240.9 (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem with first conditional.

If X happens (in the future), then Y will happen (in the future). So there is an invisible "will" in the condition. The sentence "If you are old, you will like it" means, that something will happen in the future, but for the time being you are young, so you must wait. However there is a problem with the following sentence:
"If you are young, you will like it"
But "you are young" is not something, that will happen in the future. You are young now, which is quite a different pattern:
If X already happens (now), then Y will happen (in the future).
How to precisely express the latter pattern in English? 85.193.236.88 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This is already well explained in the article; see "contradiction between the zero and first conditional". 85.193.217.151 (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

...can/could/should/may/might find somewhere to shelter. (other modals)

According to the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, page 88,

• if took could be the realisation of either a preterite or an irrealis, there'd be no way of telling in cases like [29ii] (If he took the later plane tonight he wouldn’t have to rush) whether it corresponded to was or to were.

Therefore, can would be added to can/could/should/may/might as another modal ? --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

If Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy someone else will have

Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, page 200, reads

If Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy someone else will have would be appropriate in a context where it was not nown that Kennedy was shot.​

I cannot understand what this paragraph tries to explain. --Backinstadiums (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess they want to say that when "will have" is used in this type of sentence, it is not used as a future perfect marker, but as a way of expressing a confident assumption on the speaker's part. W. P. Uzer (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

If he stayed in the army he will have become a colonel before the end of the decade

According to the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, page 203, the adjunct before the end of the decade could refer to the current decade, and hence to a time in the future, in If he'd stayed in the army he would have become a colonel but not in If he stayed in the army he will have become a colonel.

However, for me If he stayed in the army he will have become a colonel before the end of the decade is possible for the present decade, for example if the number of years after which one necessarily becomes a colonel varies between a given range, say 3-5, but never exceeds it.

Am I right? --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Just about, I suppose, though it sounds rather unnatural to me in that meaning (not that it sounds particularly natural in the other meaning either). W. P. Uzer (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Antecedent/consequent versus protasis/apodosis

I'd like to switch over the terminology used in the article, from protasis to antecedent and from apodosis to consequent. The reason being that these terms are pretty much universally used in the contemporary linguistics and philosophy literature. But I wanted to post here, just in case anybody objects and wants to discuss. Botterweg14 (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Lack of sources?

I think this article would be better if it was based on sources which used examples from a corpus. As it is, the examples seem in many cases to have been simply plucked from the air, or invented by the writer. Some of the examples, such as "Please help Mrs Brown if you could" seem dubious. Moreover, large parts of the article, such as "English language teaching", seem devoid of references. Which well-known ELT books, for example, use the category "zero conditional"? A good Wikipedia article should be based on standard sources, and should make it clear which sources are being used for each part of the article. The information given in the article may be taken from a standard source, but there is no way of checking. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you're absolutely right. The source I'd recommend would be Pullum & Huddleston's Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. It's extremely high quality, and draws on actual linguistic research without getting bogged down in theoretical disputes. It's been my go-to when editing articles on English grammar. Botterweg14 (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the "zero conditional" stuff comes from Craig Thane Teacher Training Essentials: Workshops for Professional Development p.67. That's what was cited in a section of the conditional sentence article that I removed (since it largely duplicated this article). I have no idea if that's a standard source in the ELT world. Botterweg14 (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if that's a standard source, but it's a term I've encountered in various places; Google and Google Books throw up plenty of hits. W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

English

Iam 2402:3A80:409:FDE6:0:60:C9FA:1701 (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The taking is not a consequence of the curing, but a consequence of the expectation that they will cure

I think this sentence needs further elaboration --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)