His eventual defeat might have happened

Thank you, JTT.

If it's a counter-factual conditional, the protasis will be IF HE HAD RUN.

@WBYeats,

Quote:

-(part of a dialogue)He might have got there in a quarter of an hour if he ran
(a person doing some inference, so it's not a counter-factual conditional)

Is it for the same reason regarding the original Chiang question that Agatha Christie uses MIGHT HAVE GOT instead of MIGHT GET?

What do you think the difference would be if it was a "counter-factual conditional"?

Quote:

If it's a counter-factual conditional, the protasis will be IF HE HAD RUN.

I've heard that advanced before, WB, but it simply is not true.

There is no difference between,

1. If he ran, he might have got there in a quarter of an hour

and

2. If he had run, he might have got there in a quarter of an hour

The counterfactuality of a situation isn't determined so much by the language used as it is by the situation itself and often, by the particular words that are chosen.

Let me give you an example:

If I lived in the Middle Ages, I would not have wanted to be a peasant.

Clearly a counterfactual situation but there's nothing compelling a native speaker to always use "S had + PP".

If this was/were the Middle Ages, ... .

Whoever it was that said that in the Christie novel is expressing their opinion based on a condition [which may or may not have been true, which means that it also may or may not have been a counterfactual], whether he ran or didn't run, that they are unsure of.

When we draw inferences they can often be counterfactuals.

1 Reply

Thank you, JTT.

The past counter-factual conditional I mentioned is explained so in many books, my reading experience tells me the real situation is not so, which dovetails with what you said(I was happy to hear that!). But don't you think if those pedantic rules are not complied with, a good distinction will be lost?

===================================
Before proceeding, I need your opinion about a question that has beset me a long time -

Is there any difference between these?:

-If I was there, I would have told him.
-If I were there, I would have told him.
-If I had been there, I would have told him.

1 Reply

@WBYeats,

Quote:

The past counter-factual conditional I mentioned is explained so in many books, my reading experience tells me the real situation is not so, which dovetails with what you said(I was happy to hear that!). But don't you think if those pedantic rules are not complied with, a good distinction will be lost?

Please point me to one of those books so we can be sure that we are on the same page.

I don't know what "good distinction" you mean.

Quote:

Before proceeding, I need your opinion about a question that has beset me a long time -

Is there any difference between these?:

-If I was there, I would have told him.
-If I were there, I would have told him.
-If I had been there, I would have told him.

There certainly could be a difference, depending upon the reality of the situation, the CONTEXT and the time sequencing. I think that this relates to the first part of your post.

Remember how I have mentioned that CONTEXT is vital to determining language use.

1 Reply

Sorry, let me explain in a clearer way.

Those rules are, to refer to an event, we use, in the subjunctive mood, a tense more remote than we would normally use to refer to that event in the indicative mood.

So, when we make a hypothetical statement referring to a past thing, the protasis should be IF I HAD DONE STH; I agree with JTT that, despite a number of grammar books upholding such rules, many famous writers don't use it this way. But if we casually change HAD DONE to DID, a good distinction will be lost:

1. If you had respect for other people, you wouldn't have asked this question.
2.If you had had respect for other people, you wouldn't have asked this question.

Since the simple past form is used for the present subjunctive, we can have a tentative conclusion:

# 1 implies the person addressed still doesn't have respect, #2 implies he didn't have, but whether now he has is irrelevant or unknown.

Do you agree with this view?

1 Reply

@WBYeats,

Quote:

I agree with JTT that, despite a number of grammar books upholding such rules, many famous writers don't use it this way.

Not only many famous writers but also everyone who uses the English language, WB.

Quote:

Those rules are, to refer to an event, we use, in the subjunctive mood, a tense more remote than we would normally use to refer to that event in the indicative mood.

First, grammar rules don't dictate language use, grammar rules describe why we choose particular structures for particular situations.

The situation/context/intended meaning determines what structures we choose to fulfill meaning for a given situation.

Looking at this in a 'indicative versus subjunctive' is too simplistic. So many situations are not either one or the other. Instead of this,

INDICATIVE OR SUBJUNCTIVE

we have a long sliding scale that starts with REALITY described by WHEN + present tense form which moves along to IF + present tense form and we are still in REALITY but we are moving towards DOUBTFUL, then MORE DOUBTFUL, then GREAT DOUBT, then GREATER DOUBT and then we reach the IRREALIS/IMPOSSIBLE/UNREAL end of the scale where IF +past tense form becomes virtually mandatory.

There is a great deal of overlap along this scale in the middle range where we choose the verb form structure to convey our feelings, along with notions of reality/nonreality.

Quote:

So, when we make a hypothetical statement referring to a past thing, the protasis should be IF I HAD DONE STH; I agree with JTT that, despite a number of grammar books upholding such rules, many famous writers don't use it this way. But if we casually change HAD DONE to DID, a good distinction will be lost:

1. If you had respect for other people, you wouldn't have asked this question.
2.If you had had respect for other people, you wouldn't have asked this question.

Since the simple past form is used for the present subjunctive, we can have a tentative conclusion:

# 1 implies the person addressed still doesn't have respect,

We can't know, without greater context, whether the speaker is implying or stating it outright with great anger and exceedingly firm conviction.

Number one either implies or describes the speaker's notion/conviction that the person does not possess as their general condition, their usual nature, respect for other people. Number 1 paraphrased,

1a. You don't have respect for other people. People who have this respect would not, in that finished situation, ask that question.

#2 "If you had had respect for other people, you wouldn't have asked this question"

implies he didn't have, but whether now he has is irrelevant or unknown.

When we use the past perfect form, [note that this is not a subjunctive form though it is subjunctive mood] it only means that the speaker's focus has shifted to the actual finished event.

When the focus is on an event that was factual in nature, I'd say that the tendency is to speak to the event, which makes "for other people" sound a little odd like the speaker is addressing the perpetrator's general condition.

"If you had had any respect for your wife, you wouldn't have asked this question"

We can't determine "whether now he has 'respect' is either irrelevant or unknown" because we aren't that speaker. The speaker doesn't seem to be implying, rather the speaker seems to be stating his feelings quite strongly.

But if we casually change HAD DONE to DID, a good distinction will be lost:

As I've pointed out, speakers choose depending on what their meaning is. There is no distinction lost. Following this notion would actually lose distinction we now can make.

I've encountered this argument before and I can't at present find a source that argues that we will "lose a good distinction". Whenever I've encountered that line of "reasoning" it's usual been accompanied by any critical thinking as to how language is actually used by native speakers.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Thank you, JTT~ But didn't you say there's no need for a native speaker to use the past perfect in the protasis for a past counterfactual conditional? If so, how can there be difference between:

-If I was there, I would have told him.
-If I were there, I would have told him.
-If I had been there, I would have told him.

At least I can't think of any. Can you?

0 Replies

@hingehead,

-The writing of these stories was a great release of my hitherto un expressed feelings and of thoughts which could not be stated without mention of hears that had no rational basis.Gradually their scope widened. I found it possible to express in this fictional form dangers that would have been deemed silly while only a few men recognised them. I could state in fiction ideas which I half believed in but had non good grounds for believing. In this way it was possible to warn of dangers which might or might not occur in the near future.

According to Hingehead, referring to a past thing, we use MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED. MIGHT HAPPEN is present. But the above excerpt is past things, why not MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED?

0 Replies

"in the near future", i.e. since we are now (as always) in the present, and they are in the near future they haven't yet happened (or not happened yet, whichever), so we don't use a past tense.

2 Replies

Thank you, MJ.

For JTT:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbNtRQwVjAk at 00:23.

-If it wasn't for....

Do you think it can be replaced by WEREN'T/HADN'T BEEN?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

"in the near future", i.e. since we are now (as always) in the present, and they are in the near future they haven't yet happened (or not happened yet, whichever), so we don't use a past tense.

And note, MJ, that 'might' only carries modal meaning into the sentence. It doesn't in any manner indicate tense. Past tense is indicated by HAVE HAPPENED.

0 Replies

@WBYeats,

Please post the whole sentence, WB.

0 Replies

(ignore that link first~

Thank you, JTT~ But didn't you say there's no need for a native speaker to use the past perfect in the protasis for a past counterfactual conditional? If so, how can there be difference between:

-If I was there, I would have told him.
-If I were there, I would have told him.
-If I had been there, I would have told him.

At least I can't think of any situation where they are not interchangeable. Can you?

1 Reply

@WBYeats,

Quote:

Thank you, JTT~ But didn't you say there's no need for a native speaker to use the past perfect in the protasis for a past counterfactual conditional?

No, WB, what I said is,

"Clearly a counterfactual situation but there's nothing compelling a native speaker to always use "S had + PP"."

The operative word is 'always'.

Quote:

If so, how can there be differences between:

-If I was there, I would have told him.
-If I were there, I would have told him.
-If I had been there, I would have told him.

At least I can't think of any situation where they are not interchangeable. Can you?

Life presents an infinite array of scenarios and language has to [and does] match all those situations with language to do that. We need context to determine that.

A: Man, was I blasted last night! I'm glad I just stayed home and slept it off.

B: [shocked look on face] Stayed home!!!!! You didn't stay home. You were at Barry's party. How come you never told him to stay away from your girl?

A: [equally shocked look] No way, man. I was home, sawing logs!!

C,D and E: No, A, you were at Barry's party the whole night until you passed out. We brought you home and put you into bed.

A: Well, if I was there, I would have, I must have told him.

'if I was there', underlined says, "Allowing that you guys are right that I was there, ... "

===========

Could you provide a link to where some author discusses this situation where this/these "distinction/s will be lost". Or scan and post something from a grammar book in your possession, WB.

1 Reply

Thank you, JTT. I must say I really like your metalanguage.

Quote:

Could you provide a link to where some author discusses this situation where this/these "distinction/s will be lost". Or scan and post something from a grammar book in your possession, WB.

Sorry, I'm afraid I'm not able to do so: I simply don't have such things. I have read Michael Swan's book twice, from start to finish, but you saw he, in the conditional section, clearly fight shy of more explanations. Obviously he can't give a definite answer to whether we can simply say 'If he did, he would have done' instead of 'If he had done, he would have done'. Apart from this, many grammar writers just touch upon these things; all the grammar books I have say we need to follow those pedantic rules.

I got the idea that we should use 'if he did' for present hypothetical and 'if he had done' for past hypothetical for clearness' sake.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Do you know any grammar books solely on conditionals and which are masterpieces?

0 Replies

@WBYeats,

Quote:

I have read Michael Swan's book twice

Ya shudda told me, WB, so I didn't waste my time typing out explanations from Swan.

0 Replies

You didn't ask me, JTT~ -_- continue with your example:

Quote:

C,D and E: No, A, you were at Barry's party the whole night until you passed out. We brought you home and put you into bed.

A: Well, if I was there, I would have, I must have told him.

'if I was there', underlined says, "Allowing that you guys are right that I was there, ... "

But to convey the same meaning, aren't WERE THERE and HAD BEEN THERE equally possible?

1 Reply

@WBYeats,

If I post Swan and you've read him twice, right thru, you could consider/could have considered that as a question.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

so we don't use a past tense.

But MIGHT was used and you maintain that MIGHT is a past tense, Jack. You are terribly confused, aren't you?

0 Replies

His eventual defeat might have happened

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know