Conditional limitations

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:49 am

The words "provided" and "providing" seem nearly synonymous to me, but they ARE different in meaning to "if". It is a little difficult to exactly define how they are different.

Now I know that some of you don't like the numbered conditional, but I notice that it is only possible to use "provided" and "providing" with zero and first conditionals. We can use them with a real past event, however:

"You can marry George provided he really did kill the dragon."

Note that we usually use fronting of "did" in such cases rather than using the "-ed" suffix.

It seems to me that "if" refers to an uncertain condition, and "provided"/"providing" refer to a condition that must happen (or have happened) in order for the conditional outcome to happen.

This is a very subtle difference. Any ideas on how to teach it?

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 12:17 pm

As you have intimated, Andy, "provided something is true, something else can be granted/allowed/permitted", whereas if examples would seem much more open to conjecture (and therefore a wider range of modals in the other clause than can).

I'd just suggest looking at a lot of examples and seeing what sort of things are usually granted/allowed/permitted in providing sthg is true (presuming this is the main or sole function of "providing/provided"), and perhaps make a matching exercise for sentence halves, or get the students to think of how to complete the remaining half of sentences beginning with "Provided/providing" clauses (i.e. to think of what will be granted, and by whom, to whom). But I'd be wary of doing anything that might imply there is an absolute difference between this and if (unless the data shows absolutely otherwise).

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 1:27 pm

But I'd be wary of doing anything that might imply there is an absolute difference between this and if (unless the data shows absolutely otherwise).

Thank you FH, for that. I think that we're back to the old false dichotomy problem. "If" can ALWAYS be used where "provided"/"providing" can be used, but "provided"/"providing" can't be used in all cases where "if" can.
Please tell me if I'm wrong on this.

Now having finished that last paragraph, I would like to go back to the last sentence:

"Please tell me if I am wrong on this."

Notice that it would not be possible to substitute, "Please tell me provided I am wrong," or "Please tell me providing I am wrong."

Nor would it be possible to say, "Please tell me in case I'm wrong on this." "In case" also refers to uncertainty, but it seems to me that although "if" can refer to something that has happened, is happening or may happen, "in case" can only refer to something that may happen, or which if it has happened or is happening, we at least do not yet know that fact:

eg "You had better take the van instead of the car in case they:
a) are already digging up the floor, or
b) have already dug up the floor."

Notice that substituting "if" changes the meaning:

If I said,
"You had better take the van instead of the car if they:
a) are already digging up the floor, or
b) have already dug up the floor."

It would imply that I know for a fact that they either:
a) are doing so, or
b) have done so.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:52 am

"Please tell me if I am wrong on this."

Note that this is not a conditional sentence. It doesn't mean, "Tell me on the occasion that I'm wrong, but don't tell me when I'm right." It means, "Give me your opinion."

It is not the same kind of sentence as, "You can go if your homework is done." Different analyses apply.

Larry Latham

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:54 am

Fluffy wrote:I'd just suggest looking at a lot of examples and seeing what sort of things are usually granted/allowed/permitted in providing sthg is true

This is always good advice.

Larry Latham

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 8:27 am

Isn't "provided" restricted to situations where some kind of positive result will occur?

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 9:32 am

Larry Lantham wrote commenting on the sentence, "Tell me if I am wrong:

Note that this is not a conditional sentence. It doesn't mean, "Tell me on the occasion that I'm wrong, but don't tell me when I'm right." It means, "Give me your opinion."

Larry, if you chose to interpret this sentence that way, it is for purely pragmatic reasons. It can be interpreted that way, but it can be interpreted more literally too. Even the literal interpretation is problematic, however. Looking at it now, I can see that it is not possible to interpret it purely logical grounds. Specifically what exactly should the reader tell me? It is not stated. We interpret that it is that I am wrong (if am am wrong, that is), but the sentence does not spell this out. The conditional would be:
Tell me that I am wrong if I am wrong.

Isn't "provided" restricted to situations where some kind of positive result will occur?

Good point. negative outcomes don't seem to work here. I think that you are right. The same is true for "providing" of course.

Harzer · Post by **Harzer** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 10:41 am

I will marry Harry thank you very much. I am not into dragon-slayers at the best of times; and to make it a prerequisite for nuptial bliss is abhorrent in the extreme.

Harry has already made druidicide into a nice little earner; and the prospect of a comfortable little three-brm cave in Avebury, together with the odd foray into Northern Spain over the summer months, not to mention the occasional queasiness at brekky time, induces me to go with him.

Harzerius

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 5:27 pm

You definitely need "trussing", Andrew.
Tell me if I'm wrong.
is not a conditional sentence.
Tell me, if I'm wrong.
is.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 6:39 pm

Stephen wrote:

You definitely need "trussing", Andrew.
Tell me if I'm wrong.
is not a conditional sentence.
Tell me, if I'm wrong.
is.

This answer has totally baffled me. I think you are calling me a turkey in a rather cryptic way, that isn't very nice.

The comma has me a little baffled too. Normally there is no comma when "if" is in the middle.

If x,y
Or
y if x

In the example sentence, the second clause is actually closer to the first clause than it would be in a normal conditional as it both gives the conditions under which you should tell me and what you should tell me.

Are you sure that there is a comma here?

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 7:43 pm

Yes, Stephen, please explain the difference for those of use who are punctuation-impaired.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 9:09 pm

The "trussed" was referring to Lynn Truss, but it's me who's tied himself in knots here.

The comma would at least make it clear the clause was a conditional - that is to say it would clear up the ambiguity.

These sentences are clearly conditional
Phone me if he comes.
Give him my regards if he comes
However,
Tell me if he comes
is ambiguous, since it is not clear if you are to tell me if he doesn't come.

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:22 pm

Gah, I still don't get it. "Tell me, if he comes." and "Tell me if he comes." seem the same to me.

Lorikeet the dense

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:45 pm

You're not dense, Lorikeet. It seems pretty obscure to me too, but my sensibilities tell me that any difference in form implies a difference, however slight, in meaning. So I think there's a difference.

Here's how it seems to me.

"Tell me, if he comes".

...could perhaps be paraphrased: Only when you see him, then let me know he's here. On the other hand,

"Tell me if he comes".

...might be paraphrased: At your convenience, let me know whether he came on the occasion we're talking about.

I do not make the claim that this is what these two sentences mean, only that this is what they could mean. What they actually mean cannot be determined, I think, without knowing the context, situationally and linguistically, in which they are used.

Larry Latham

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:06 am

There is also, "in the event of", and "in the event that."

Am I right in thinking these can only be used with bad conditions?

eg. In the event of fire, break glass.

In the event that your car breaks down, you must repair it at your own expense.

"In the event of doesn't seem to be very popular with the plain English movement, btw, they prefer "if".