second conditional

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:26 am

I have another problem in a textbook I wasn't involved in. The second conditional (future) is being taught, and the sample sentences seem to follow the rules, but they don't make sense to me logically, or don't sound right. Is the second conditional being used correctly? Does this sound okay to British ears (or other American ears)? Are there other rules to consider? The red verbs sound awry to me. A poor girl has a bottle of milk and as she walks to the market she contemplates her options aloud:
"If I sold the milk, I would make some money. If I had some money, I would buy a hen. If the hen laid some eggs, those eggs would become more hens and I would have more eggs. If I sold all the eggs, I would make a lot of money. If I had a lot of money, I would buy many pretty dresses and diamond necklaces. If I wore the dress, I would become the prettiest girl in the whole town and the prince would want to meet me. If the prince met me, he would kiss my hand and say, 'Would you like to dance with me?' Then I would say, 'it's my peasure, my prince' and I would bow."

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:13 am

The story sounded okay to me. What would make it sound better to you?

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:30 am

If I were to sell the milk, or If I sell the milk, because this is future speculation. I don't want you to second-guess. If it sounds okay on the first reading, it might just be me. Why does it sound strange to me (and my other American colleague)?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Dec 26, 2006 4:01 pm

To my British ears (though that may not have anything to do with it) If I sold the milk.. makes it sound as though she doesn't expect to sell the milk. But surely she must think there's a good chance she'll sell it, otherwise why bother going to market? It should sound like a real possibility, not a dream. That's why I prefer If I sell....

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Tue Dec 26, 2006 6:07 pm

Ah, I see what you mean then. It would be better if she were dreaming the story than being on the way to sell it.

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:32 am

Well, strangely enough, the story is entitled "Linda's Dreams." It says that she takes the milk to the market to sell it. So the first sentence would definitely not be second conditional, because it is a planned event, right? And if that is so, all the other chain events are in the realm of possibility (except perhaps the prince meeting her). In the end, she spills her milk and her dreams become suddenly impossible, but the girl or the reader doesn't know that while she is musing along.
Also, when is it ever possible to say If I sold the milk? Maybe on a deserted island devoid of commerce or in a society where milk isn't treasured. I can see it with the sentence If I won the lottery, I would give it all to the poor. That's because winning the lottery is outside your control and with very slim chances. But selling milk, especially milk in your hands, is something you do or don't do. It's just based on a decision to act. Maybe that's why it doesn't agree with me. If I had some money sounds okay to me because it has a present sense (as well as/rather than?) a future one.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:05 am

She's speculating. The use of the past distances the speaker more than the use of the present.

If she later goes on to acheive all of those actions then her attitude has changed. The tense merely reflects the attitude at that time.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:53 am

If you think that textbook's bad, I wonder what you'd make of this: If I have a lot of money... (students complete with I will...). (But there'd be nothing wrong with something like If/when/whenever I have a lot of money, I spend it all in a flash, provided that 'a lot of money' there meant 'More than I usually have, but we're not talking millions here').

You could say there's a certain resistance in Japan to teaching the "remote" forms of modals, even when they would seem needed.

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:31 pm

Well, Asian languages don't have a subjunctive verb form, like our Latin- and German-based languages. Japanese has a lot of verb forms that express social status, age, familiarity, etc., but the subjunctive is absent, right? Maybe it was a waste of time thinking about improbabilities or hypothetical situations.
Which is better — to underuse it or overuse it? I was asked to modify the story for a later edition. It didn't alarm Lorikeet or Stephen too much, but I could probably adjust it a little to fit better. Maybe she can have a lottery ticket in hand, which makes the reality of the dream much more remote.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:44 pm

Yeah, but the structural template was in a textbook (Talk and Talk, similar visually/design-wise to Side by Side, but by a Japanese writer); then, I get sighs from the JTE when I again suggest 'would' in relation to discussion among students about courses of action 'if they are the (Japanese) mother who received a call asking for money cos her son was "naughty" '...

The fact is, they are learning English, and substituting 'would' for 'will (and incidentally using a past form of 'be') wouldn't kill anyone, would it (who knows, they could even learn something).

Sorry, rant over.

MrPedantic · Post by **MrPedantic** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:44 pm

The verbs in red sound perfectly natural to me (BrE). Changing them all to an "if I were to" structure would make the story intolerably wordy.

She's speculating. The use of the past distances the speaker more than the use of the present.

I would agree with that.

With the "first conditional", the speaker presents the action as "immediate". With the "second conditional", the speaker presents the action as "remote".

Some ESL sites and textbooks promote the idea that the "second conditional" relates to "unlikelier" events than the "first conditional", and then support that notion by presenting examples of unlikely events, e.g. (from the lamentable http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conditional2.htm):

1. If I become president, I will change the social security system. (Said by a presidential candidate) [first conditional]

2. If I became president, I would change the social security system. (Said by a schoolboy: improbable) [second conditional]

This is not strictly true, as we can see from the use of the "second conditional" in everyday advice:

3. Well, yes, that is the road to Basingstoke. But if you took that road over there, you'd get there a lot quicker. [Obviously, the driver will take the second road.]

Or in non-hypothetical hypotheticals:

4. If I were to say to you, "You're a blockhead, Johnson," what would you reply? [I am in fact calling Johnson a blockhead.]

The true probability of the action is immaterial: what matters is its presentation.

MrP

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 6:26 am

Yes, I think I agree. It's why I have a problem with the whole conditional thing. Subjunctives can be used for unreal events or suppositions.

Changing them all to an "if I were to" structure would make the story intolerably wordy

I think so too. I only mentioned it because it seems to fit the mood better. The present tense works best for me as it's one word and also fits the mood. I don't know why the past jars with me though. Maybe because we don't use this kind of subjunctive when talking to ourselves about our own controllable actions. In other words, maybe it sounds better if you talk to someone else about theoretical constructs as a creative device to explain or convince, or if someone else advises or tries to convince you by way of hypothesis: "if you sold the milk, you'd make some money." Maybe because it is slightly formal or involves complex abstractions, and you just don't catch young kids talking like this with themselves, or with others, until they start reaching high-school age.

4. If I were to say to you, "You're a blockhead, Johnson," what would you reply? [I am in fact calling Johnson a blockhead.]

I take exception to your fourth example. I think it's a creative way (using hypothesis) to imply that he actually is a blockhead, without going ahead and saying it.

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:17 am

I was looking at that "lamentable" website again in detail: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conditional2.htm
You were pointing out that you disagree with the unreal restrictions, but I noticed something else: it says that second conditional is used for the present; it doesn't mention future tense. British websites say the second conditional is used for present and future. This must be an American-British difference. The red verbs I questioned deal with this future tense.
Although I was beginning to accept this usage as everyone was talking about it, I can't just ignore my initial strong reaction and that of my American colleague. Perhaps this is the reason for it. Can anyone shed light on this?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:50 am

lolwhites wrote:To my British ears (though that may not have anything to do with it) If I sold the milk.. makes it sound as though she doesn't expect to sell the milk. But surely she must think there's a good chance she'll sell it, otherwise why bother going to market? It should sound like a real possibility, not a dream. That's why I prefer If I sell....

I agree. The present form is more of a certainty - in the mind of the speaker.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:16 am

Getting back to the story, it seems a bit academic to ponder which exact form to use when only a single stinky bottle of curdling milk is up for flogging (I'm assuming the cow's cow is dead, or near it, from the inappropriate use of a gerbil scrotum-harness on some udders) - or is it a giant bottle? I mean, nobody on 'How much is a pint of milk?' has ever told Empire, 'Oh, it's about as much as a chicken'.