Teacher Discussion Forums

What would you say is the meaning in the first sentence below and in what way is it different, in meaning and not grammar, to the second example?

"If we arrived tomorrow, that would be wonderful."

"If we arrive tomorrow, that would be wonderful."

Thanks.

Little difference in meaning, though in the first case they are still don't really believe it's going to be possible to arrive by the next day.

Stephen Jones wrote:Little difference in meaning, though in the first case they are still don't really believe it's going to be possible to arrive by the next day.

I agree. Thanks.

I prefer to use "will" with the present conditional, and "would" with the past (or in this case he's using the past to mark the subjunctive):

"If we arrived tommorrow, that would be wonderful."
"If we arrive tommorrow, that will be wonderful."

But it seems as if the rest of you have no problem with metal's second sentence, so maybe I'm being influenced by Spanish. In any case, if I were teaching this I think I would still stick to my own rule (above). Even if it is imaginary, it helps the students keep it straight and they'll never go wrong using it.

Even if it is imaginary, it helps the students keep it straight and they'll never go wrong using it.

How does this first-second conditional rule help them keep it straight when they keep coming across sentences that obviously break it.

And how do you explain away the cases where the past is referring to a real possibility in the past as opposed to a hypothetical possibility in the present.
a.g If the train got delayed he'll miss the begining of the film.

It's much, much easier to treat the separate clauses of the 'conditional sentence' independently.

Tara B wrote:But it seems as if the rest of you have no problem with metal's second sentence, so maybe I'm being influenced by Spanish.

Or the restrictive ESL teaching of only 3-4 English conditional structures. There are many more.

metal56 wrote:

Tara B wrote:But it seems as if the rest of you have no problem with metal's second sentence, so maybe I'm being influenced by Spanish.

Or the restrictive ESL teaching of only 3-4 English conditional structures. There are many more.

Even if it is imaginary, it helps the students keep it straight and they'll never go wrong using it.

Certainly they do. They get wrong on it when they need to express the meaning that Stephen posted:

<Little difference in meaning, though in the first case they still don't really believe it's going to be possible to arrive by the next day.>

Stephen Jones wrote:
It's much, much easier to treat the separate clauses of the 'conditional sentence' independently.

Absolutely spot on!

I think Tara's point isn't so much 'The 4 conditionals are the only conditional structures that can or should ever appear in English' but rather, 'Do students really have to grapple with this sort of sentence to understand, and in turn produce their own sentences?'.

Personally, I'm not convinced, because neither of the examples metal has offered sound particularly convincing. I am sure there are many who read half of what metal posts, find something dodgy about his examples, but hold back on commenting because they will then be ranted at for days for not agreeing that metal has "proved" something or other (whatever that might be exactly).

Admittedly these examples aren't too strange, but they don't sound as if they have a clear function, compared to e.g. We('ll) arrive tomorrow? Good!, or If we can/could arrive tomorrow, that will/would be great.

I've remarked before about the overabundance of "remote" versus "proximal" main verbs on Dave's - it's like the modals suddenly ceased to exist as a real possibility in a verb phrase.

I don't have time to really check, but this reminds me of another discussion we had on Dave's a few months ago:
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... 4220#14220

I recall SJ and metal weren't in quite the same sort of agreement there.

Anyway just wanting to give you guys something to discuss/argue/scream about/rip to shreds!

<I think Tara's point isn't so much 'The 4 conditionals are the only conditional structures that can or should ever appear in English' but rather, 'Do students really have to grapple with this sort of sentence to understand, and in turn produce their own sentences?'. >

Try Pragmatics. My students come up with those sentences in their own language and wonder why they "can't" in English. It doesn't take them very long to realise that it isn't due to some major, English Language only, reduction in the ability to fully express oneself, but more from having had ESL teachers who do not know how to teach conditionality* - or teachers who wanted to hide "exceptions".

Know the verb phrase and thou will know that conditionals are no more than combinations of such.

<Personally, I'm not convinced, because neither of the examples metal has offered sound particularly convincing. >

See *.

fluffyhamster wrote: I am sure there are many who read half of what metal posts, find something dodgy about his examples, but hold back on commenting because they will then be ranted at for days for not agreeing that metal has "proved" something or other (whatever that might be exactly).

LOL! Check out your own epic-length rants.

You behave like a first year ESL teacher on an Applied Linguistics forum.

fluffyhamster wrote:
Admittedly these examples aren't too strange, but they don't sound as if they have a clear function, compared to e.g. We('ll) arrive tomorrow? Good!, or If we can/could arrive tomorrow, that will/would be great.

Yours sound like were dragged screaming from some TEFL textbook.

Try these, spoken, examples:

"I mean I'd much rather they do it if we can influence him enough. "

"...a bad idea to go down that route to see if we can we can see if it can be exploit..."

I've remarked before about the overabundance of "remote" versus "proximal" main verbs on Dave's - it's like the modals suddenly ceased to exist as a real possibility in a verb phrase.

Isn't the "before" after "remarked" redundant? Tell us how to use the remote form to refer to past actions.

What do you mean by "real possibility"?

I recall SJ and metal weren't in quite the same sort of agreement there.

Should we remain static on things, as you have?

Does anyone know of a book that gives an example of a "conditional" using the Present, rather than Past Perfect e.g.

If Thomas has passed his FCE exams (which he took last week), he'll get his certificate in three months

I agree totally with SJ on this one. As for Tara's point about being influenced by Spanish, surly Spanish has so-called "mixed" conditionals too. Is Sería maravilloso si llegamos mañana really an impossible combination?

"surly Spanish" Well, sometimes.

I may post some epic-length entries on Dave's, but at least when I am responding to what somebody else wrote (rather than kicking off a thread myself, or - usually evidently and quite harmlessly - just following my muse) I try to confine whatever points I wish to make to one post.

You, on the other hand, metal, start thread after thread, some with little obvious interest or utility, and if anyone dares question the ultimate import of what you're "saying", you then make post after post, point upon point (that's what I meant by (you) "ranting"), which makes it progressively harder for people to continue responding (the points may be "obviously" connected in your mind, but they might not be to the person you're aiming them at).

I don't mind you saying I 'behave like a first-year teacher on an AL forum', and that I 'don't know how to teach conditionality', but what, may I ask, are you exactly? Some "cutting-edge" professor whose sole stock-in-trade is just doling out endless reams of exceptions for his students (which includes "lesser" teachers and actual ESL/EFL students) to grapple with? Beauties such as: 'I mean I'd much rather they do it if we can influence him enough', or '...a bad idea to go down that route to see if we can we can see if it can be exploit...'.

That is the sort of "junk" (I'd like you to tell me, actually, quite what the first one there means), the sort of mess that Carter and McCarthy (and you) might well throw at e.g. CAE going-on CPE EU students in cushy wow-my-students-can-understand-so-much-I-don't-have-to-worry-about-ever-confusing-them classrooms. Have you ever "had to" teach e.g. Japanese struggling eikaiwa students, or did you get out of that "game" just as fast as you could? (Maybe a textbook filled with your sort of examples would reverse the situation totally, eh! Oh but then, you probably haven't written one yet, have you? Not that you're under any obligation to, of course).

I suppose I can just about see the use in letting one's eyes (or ears) scan through it in trying to extract the general meaning, but it doesn't seem to be the sort of stuff that would exactly help students productively (I'm not after perfect sentences, by the way, but I do like to hear the odd well-honed phrase from time to time. If students could make the leap to full-on native fluent incompetence I would of course be very happy, but it is hard to teach this down to the last slur, hiccup, reformulation, burp and swearword).

Hmm, my examples sound like they were dragged from a textbook, do they? I was rather hoping they sounded a little more functional, that a context came more readily to mind (knock the 'if' off of 'If we arrived...' and 'If we can/could arrive...' to see what I'm driving at here - 'We modal arrive tomorrow - great eh!'). I'll try to improve upon them, then...not just in terms of quality but also quantity...

I mean, I really am not in the business of ignoring evidence, and this is a totally different matter from "hiding exceptions": no course can ever hope to cover every possibility, and some examples really are, in the final analysis, more marginal than others. (See above implication that writing a textbook would involve hard decisions that some just might not be prepared to make). I accept that there are more than the four types of conditionals covered in many textbooks, and that the best way to deal with and account for the wider variety that exists is to "simply" analyze each clause independently.

Finally:

Isn't the "before" after "remarked" redundant? Tell us how to use the remote form to refer to past actions.

What do you mean by "real possibility"?

Those may be examples of bad writing, but I doubt if I'm the only one guilty of ever making these kind of "mistakes" - do they not have their role to play? 'I've remarked before' - ellipted/implied: in another post or thread, not earlier in this present one?; 'a real possibility' versus "just" a 'possibility' - a remote one, what exactly?

If you expect others to live with and learn from your rubbish, you could at least try to do the same with regard to other people's.