Third conditional v mixed conditional.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 10:39 pm

I used to think that the third and mixed conditional could more or less be used interchangeably. I've always taught both saying, What has happened has happened and you can't change it. But you can speculate about how it could have been different if it hadn't happened. - It's hypothetical. ("Hypothetical is similar to a Polish word, so I have to use this word.)

Recently, however, I found the 3rd defined as,
"an imaginary situation in the past,"

and the mixed defined as,
"the likely present result of an imaginary situation in the past."

These definitions seem to suggest that the mixed conditional is less certainly hypothetical than the 3rd.

Is this the case?

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 1:10 am

Is the "mixed" conditional something like "If Bruce Lee hadn't taken that aspirin, he WOULD (STILL) BE ALIVE AND (literally) KICKING"? (I'm guessing it is, but I'm not sure, because not many grammar books mention it explicitly enough for it to have "sunk in" totally with me yet).

If so, then it would seem that bit more interesting functionally than the third, wouldn't it; that is, if you just talk about past events AND ONLY THEIR PAST EFFECTS, you are in danger of "living in the past" (and perhaps just producing practice-like examples: "If Japan hadn't bombed Pearl Harbour, America wouldn't've joined the war (as early)" etc), whereas drawing more present conclusions (bringing the imaginings "up to date", so to speak) holds out the possibility of e.g. endeavouring to avoid making a similar mistake (or, indeed, taking action to rectify a not-too-far-gone one: "If we'd gone for Plan B, we wouldn't be in this mess now! It's not too late to change things, you know! Yes, let's cut our losses and try Plan B instead!" I suppose you could even put warnings on aspirin packets, even after all these years...).

So the distinctions that perhaps need to be made are between IMAGINING DIFFERENTLY THINGS THAT CANNOT BE ANY DIFFERENT/CHANGED AT ALL (because they are irreversible facts, either in fact, or, let us not forget, "finalized" works of e.g. fiction, cinema etc - that's not to say remakes aren't possible!); and IMAGINING THAT THINGS CAN BE DIFFERENT, AND CHANGED (either in reality, to rectify past mistakes, or to improve a fictional "work in progress" - except that in the latter case, we would use first and second conditionals i.e. less "distant" or "remote" forms e.g. see the producers talking at the start (and near the end) of "The Majestic"). Note the differences in word order for "that" and "things" in each BOLD distinction.

Obviously, "things that cannot be changed" are more "hypothetical", interesting though they are to think about and change in our imaginations (that is, the most that thinking about them can do is, as I said above, help us avoid making similar mistakes, "repeating history" etc).

So, it seems you were on the right track, Andrew!

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 1:56 pm

Thanks, Duncan.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:17 pm

Frankly, we would do well to throw the concept of first, second, third (and zero?) conditionals in the trash can.

Life becomes much simpler it you simply classify them according to the tense of the if clause, and forget about the tense of the main clause, which can vary a lot.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:59 pm

Stephen,

I can see how that works when the conditional is in the form:

If x,y

Where "If x" is the if clause and "y" is the other clause;

but conditionals can also be in the form:

y if x

then there is no "if" clause.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:54 pm

It's the whole idea of classifying conditional sentences in three classes which I'm against.

I don't care if we take the main clause or the subordinate one as our stariting point.

Incidentally I presume that by x if y{/i]
you mean sentences lke
I'll do it if possible
where there is no subordinate clause.

The position of the 'if' phrase or clause is rrrelevant to the structure of the sentence.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:50 pm

I'm with Stephen on this one.

Larry Latham

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 12:14 am

I was watching the movie "Dark Blue" last night (with Kurt Russell, Ving Rhames, Brendan Gleeson etc), and in one scene, a younger officer was being questioned about his use of force in shooting a suspect dead.

The chairman asked the officer something along the lines of, "Officer X, if you could step inside a time machine, and go back to the day of the shooting, I'd like to know what you would do differently", to which the officer replied something like, "I wouldn't do anything differently, it's how I was trained etc...if anything, I should've been(=drawn and shot) even faster, because the guy was known to be very dangerous". (The officer's reply generally was satisfactory, but his point about needing to have been faster didn't make a whole lot of sense to me - shot is shot and dead is dead, he didn't NEED to be faster at all!).

Anyway, just thought you guys would enjoy reading these examples (and they're about the only thing of interest in the movie, before you rush out and rent it).