Job Discussion Forums

[Stephen Jones]

The orignal quote is not from an academic thesis. It's from an off-the-cuff oral interview.

[khmerhit]

Very good, the above makes sense; it's non-prescriptive, man, and pedagogically progressive, and above all flexible. But surely there are some constructions that just don't sound right, or is this my petit-bourgeois pedantic insecurity coming to the fore? The professor from Harvard said

-----I think if President Bush would take this up as a cause he would have President Putin as his ally---------



...which may be acceptable according to Jonesian non-rules but which just plain hurts my ears...it is no better than this--


---If he would be a millionaire, he would be retired by now.----


I mean, come on, we can't allow this!!

As Lenin asked, What is to be done? [/quote]

[Chris_Crossley]

[Stephen Jones]

[khmerhit]

Ah, Ok, Dr. , I take the point...but does that mean I have to go along with

[Pollux]

Stephan Jones wrote:

All of these sentences are grammatical; none conform to the zero, first, second, third conditional rules:



"If you will keep juggling those hand grenades, you'll do yourself a mischief. "

Do we really say this?
I say: If you keep ...,you'll do...

This is the first conditional. In British or US English.
I think the conditional statements are not just mere collocations as you suggest, but are rule based and should be taught as such. When learners master the basics, mixed conditionals should be introduced. This will come up in conversation when students try to express their thoughts, and it's a nice feeling when it does, but I think it's not productive to introduce them till they master the basics.
Result in the present, ig. had stayed...would, is the next easiest one to introduce after the basic conditionals. Personally, I love when someone says: but you said...
From my experience, studends can get discouraged by hearing that conditional statements can be just about anything depending on what you mean.

[merlin]

Ok, let's break it down:

[Stephen Jones]

As Merlin says, 'if you would do it' carries a different shade of meaning from 'if you did it'. It's not at all a question of clumsiness.
"If you will play with fire" also has a separate meaning. It clearly suggests that the action is disapproved of by the speaker.

This is not at all surprising; after all, expressing opinions about the action of the main verb is one of the main things modals do.

A second problem with the 0,1,2,3 scheme is that it doesn't deal with the most important distinction - that between 'open' and 'remote' conditions (or as they are sometimes called 'real' and 'unreal' conditions). What is the difference between these two phrases?

If Bush ordered a withdrawal from Iraq, everybody would be better off in the long run.
If Bush orders a withdrawal from Iraq, everybody will be better off in the long run.

In the second case we are dealing with something that is presumed to be under active consideration. In the first case the possibility is conceived of as being more remote. Now remoteness is one of the reasons we use the past tense - the other being that we are dealing with an event that happened in a past time scheme. So, when we use the past simple in a condtional clause, we are talking either about an open possibility in the past (that is something we don't the result of) or a remote possibility in the present. Only the context can let us know which is correct in many cases.

Incidentally, there are thirty-odd pages in the "Cambridge Grammar of the English Language" dealing with conditionals. The book is pricy, $150 + shipping, but you should persuade your centre to get a copy for the staffroom.

[Justin Trullinger]

Stephen and Merlin,
You've really covered all there is to say on the conditional structure in question. Thanks. (A good grammarian is hard to find. A teacher, even more so.)

But:

[Stephen Jones]

1,800+ pages. I know that there's not much else to do in Saudi, but the weight of the book would probably break the glass anyway, apart from it being illegal.

[Justin Trullinger]

Good point. I keep forgetting that in many parts of the world, intellectual property laws have a certain weight.

Oh well, I guess I won't be getting the book. But if they make a movie of it, I can buy the DVD for a dollar.

Justin

[YanquiQuilme�o]

[Stephen Jones]

[YanquiQuilme�o]

Some seem grammatically incorrect ... 1, 2, 5, & 6.

[Stephen Jones]