10.4. MORE WORKOUT FOR REAL-TIME TALK

Exercise 64. The word “if” does not belong with Form Relativity only. We can change “if” for “whether”, when we talk about circumstances or results rather than provisions or causes.

We have the “if” we can change underlined, in the exercise.

To practice spoken comprehension, we can use abbreviated auxiliaries, reorder phrases, as well as use Inversion, for style and flexibility.

Example 1:
She did not know if she was right.

Answer:
She did not know whether she was right.

Example 2:
If he hadn’t been extremely busy,
he would’ve remembered about the coffee.

Answer:
Hadn’t he been extremely busy,
he would’ve remembered about the coffee.

Alternately:
Had he not been extremely busy,
he would have remembered about the coffee.

*****
TASK

1. If she weren’t reading the calligraphic,
she’d be sleeping.

2. If he was writing, reading, or talking,
the colloquium had him busy all the time.

3. If he hadn’t heard from Bill then,
he’d be writing him a letter now.

4. If it weren’t such a good quality,
she’d think it a mere prank.

5. If it sustains the quality throughout,
it’ll compare with the Bodleian Horace.

6. They will / can see in the library,
if they get the Medici print.

7. If it weren’t so conscientious,
he’d throw it in that Babbitt’s garden next door.

8. If it proves necessary,
she’ll have it carbon dated.

9. If it is as good as it looks,
it might be of worth even as just a calligraphic.

10. If it hadn’t been deprived of the front matter,
it would be easier to find out who made it.

Further journey brings the Causative and the Passive, our “have it carbon dated”, in example 8, and “had been deprived”, in example 10.

Exercise 65. We can use the word “if” also in the sense of the word “when”. Grammatically, it is up to our choosing, if we speak the premise or the result first.

The exercise is not grammatically difficult. Let us think how we could say it, as in EXERCISE 33 and EXERCISE 34.

Example:
IF you provision in the condition,
may stipulation precede in position.

Answer:
May stipulation precede in position,
WHEN you provision in the condition.

*****
TASK

1. You’ll make your adage suit,
IF you toot the root in the foot.

(We can look up word stress patterns in dictionaries).

2. IF the comma won’t curse or ban,
a dot might bid the span.

3. IF the verb does not adjust,
the pronoun must never entrust.

4. IF a Modal will emend,
may diction recommend a robust complement.

5. IF meanings collate and debate,
may syntax negotiate.

Exercise 66. It is most often up to ourselves to decide, if we use Form Relativity. Let us practice the choosing. The arrow cues show the target grammatical time.

As in EXERCISE 43 and EXERCISE 58, we practice holding on to our grammatical thinking even against unusual wording.

Our inspiration is a fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen,
“THE LITTLE TINY OR THUMBELINA”.
Let us think the exercise over, as in MIND PRACTICE.

Example:
If there 1. (be) other Little Tinies, the Little Tiny 2. (can be) one of many similar beings.

Answer, with Form Relativity:
If there were other Little Tinies, the Little Tiny could be one of many similar beings.

Alternate, without Form Relativity:
If there are other Little Tinies, the Little Tiny is / can be one of many similar beings.

A. “If I 3. (be) only one of many Little Tinies, I 4. (be) actually a Little Tiny”, the Tiny hypothesized.

B. She 5. (be) strictly an inch tall and she 6. (want) a measure for her dreams.

C. “A cubit 7. (be) the length of your forearm right to the tip of your middle finger”, she 8. (reckon).

D. However, a cubit 9. (be) factually about 17.5 inches.

E. “If you 10. (have to think) about an inch to think about a cubit”, she went on hypothesizing, “my cubit N 11. (can be) a cubit, as I 12. (be) just an inch tall.

G. She 13. (visualize) a cube. “If you really 14. (need to consider) measures, you 15. (figure) on a cube of a dream”, she made another theory.

H. Nothing was positively two-dimensional. “Even if you 16. (reason) on your forearm simply, you 17. (will make) it out for three-dimensional”, she 18. (speculate).

I. “If nothing 19. (be) truly two-dimensional, dreams 20. (be) non-two-dimensional, too.”

J. “You 21. (can have) a cube of a dream, if you 22. (want) to tell whether your dreams are big or small?”

K. She 23. (start) to entertain the theory. Once you 24. (agree) to a measure, you 25. (can add up) cubes with dreams like with anything else.

L. Well, but a Thumbelina 26. (can have) a cube of a dream, if cubes 27. (be) cubits big, too? The Tiny 28. (sigh) with uncertainty.

Exercise 67. Let us be back with the grain of sand. The word “if” is not the only word to help make hypotheses. Let us try the words “as” and “when”.

They can work as conjunctions. “As” would agree with the premise. “When” would allow an opposite sense. We can know the study of meaning as semantics.

Example:
“If I N (be) a grain of sand, I (be) more prone to be of a like mind with a westerly wind”, the grain of sand thought.

Answer:
“If I were not a grain of sand, I would be more prone to be of a like mind with a westerly wind”, the grain of sand thought.

Task B gives the NODUS for the exercise. We put the thought in quotes in the grammatical PRESENT. All other phrasing is in the time of the nodus, or relative to the time of the nodus.

The exercise can help us prepare for further journey: the Reported Speech and other linguistic challenges.

A. “If wits N (be) a real thing, you (can evade) the matter of their shape”, the grain of sand (deliberate).

B. The grain of sand did eight hours of thinking about composite things a day.
NODUS

C. As the eight hours N (be) immaterial, the faculty the grain of sand (employ) during the time N (can be) immaterial either, it (conclude).

D. Obviously, the faculty you (use) to ponder on composite things (have to be) the reasoning faculty.

E. Wits, whatever their quality, (have to be) of a shape, the grain of sand (feel).

F. Therefore, it (be) uncanny for a grain of sand and a wind to be of the same mind.

G. “A thought (can be) genuinely the same, when the wits (be) not?”

H. Possibly, asking the wind its opinion N (can decide) on the issue, the grain of sand (analyze).

I. Alternately, the phrase “the same thought” (may become) just a way to speak about potentially very dissimilar things.

J. Still, the phrase “the same thought” truly (exist) and (have) its real shape. “What (happen), if you (translate) it to another language?”

K. The grain of sand (wonder) for five minutes. The phrase sure (may change) in its look.

L. Then, the term “shape” N (will be) as easy to comprehend.

M. “The same thought (will render) the same shape of mind if you (give) it the look of another language?”

N. The grain of sand (immerse) in thought for another five minutes.

Exercise 68. We can join Jim Colderstone in winter Alaska. Alaska has the largest population of bald eagles in the USA. We can mark Modality with the letter M.

We do not have to use a Modal everywhere the letter M is. We can use more than one Modal where the letter M is, or is not, too. The symbol is just to encourage Modality.

We are in the grammatical PRESENT, and we include Expression, but the exercise is open-ended: no one can or may prescribe on a natural language.

When Jim ran into the office (CHAPTER 6), Jill was not there. She left him a note, before going on her Paris vacation.

We cannot demand insight into private correspondence. The exercise only renders the message, in a mystified way. We can try to guess what Jill might have written, after a minor discord.

Example: You M N 1. (have) the ambition to be the colder stone, if you M 2. (be) in winter Alaska yourself.

Answer: You would not have the ambition to be the colder stone if you could be in the winter Alaska yourself.

A. It M 3. (be) enough that you 4. (go) EPIC terrestrial and you M 5. (see) that the temperatures 6. (favor) a Colderstone for the role.

(We can go epic.noaa.gov/epic, if we want to go EPIC terrestrial ourselves.)

B. Although you M N 7. (go) to Alaska to do STEM paperwork only, you M 8. (like) the ridges of new green and the cool breeze in a shiny spring Alaskan morning.

(We can go nsf.gov for STEM programs.)

C. Space and time M 9. (become) a source of perplexity, if you 10. (think) about times outside the present.

D. Well, humans M N 11. (be) logic strictly. And temperature, for the senses to come together well, M N 12. (be) the source for all feeling.

E. If they N 13. (have) a place in a human discourse, words M N 14. (tell) anything exact. The place yet 15. (be) only hypothetical. This 16. (be) the human person to make language possible.

Let us take our story to the grammatical PAST.

Answer:
Naturally, you would not have the ambition to be the colder stone, if you could be in winter Alaska yourself.
AN OPEN MODAL FRAME IN THE PAST

Alternate:

Naturally, you would not have had the ambition to be the colder stone, if you could have been in the winter Alaska yourself.
A MODAL FRAME CLOSED ON THE PAST

The alternate can “anchor” our discourse. The time-anchored alternate would tell about “there, then, that time, that winter: THE Alaska as we got to know it on the occasion, in the circumstance”.

*****

FROM THE KEY: Grammar resources vary so vastly in guidance on Modal verbs and the Conditional or Unreal Past that we may feel we need a comparison on language forms.

When we work out own, independent perspectives, we become able to use our language logic consistently.

It is enough we are consistent. We do not have to follow any particular resource, to be correct.

A.
MODAL MEDIATION in the PRESENT
It may / can be enough that you go EPIC terrestrial and you may / can see that the temperatures would favor a Colderstone for the role.

FORM RELATIVITY in the PRESENT
It could / might / would be enough that you went EPIC terrestrial and you might / would see that the temperatures might / would favor a Colderstone for the role.

2ND CONDITIONAL REFERENCE
If you went EPIC terrestrial, you would / might see that the temperatures might / would favor a Colderstone for the role.

NO MODAL MEDIATION or FORM RELATIVITY in the PRESENT
It is enough that you go EPIC terrestrial and you see that the temperatures favor a Colderstone for the role.

ZERO CONDITIONAL REFERENCE
If / When / As you go EPIC terrestrial, you see that the temperatures favor a Colderstone for the role.

*****

Feel welcome to continue with the language story in Part Three (!)

Part Three can bring
Jill’s library in plain canvas ― the speech part and the determiner manner and matter;
Chantelle’s travel to the Book Cliffs ― verbal nouns and other ways of syntax to the notional time;
Reported speech, the Passive, and many more components of our language landscape.

10.3. WORKOUT FOR REAL-TIME TALK

Envisioning language study as travel in a dimension, we could think about our skill as guarding us against steep slopes. Let us warm up, for some workout.

Exercise 60. We do the exercise in our thoughts, as in the MIND PRACTICE. The arrow cues show the target grammatical time. We regard our linguistic Form Relativity.

Example: If you learned, you knew.
The forms “learned” and “knew” together show there is no linguistic relativity here. Our target grammatical time is the FUTURE.

Answer: If you WILL learn, you WILL know.

1. If you learn, you know.

2. If you WERE ABLE TO learn, you WERE ABLE TO know.

3. If you learned, you WOULD know.

4. If you HAD learned, you WOULD have known.

5. If you learn, you WILL know.

6. If you learned, you WOULD know.

7. If you HAD learned, you WOULD have known.

8. If you learn, you WILL know.

Exercise 61. Let us try “jumping” time extents, as in EXERCISE 55. We provide the arrow cues for the target grammatical time. Our “jumping” symbols are:

“One time extent forward”;

“One time extent backward”.

We can present the flow of time as on a symbolic line.

We can place the question mark, for the Interrogative Expression.

Example: If you learned {?}, you knew.

Answer: DO you learn, if you know?

Example: If you learned, you knew {?}

Answer: If you learn, DO you know?

We can place the letter N for our Negative Expression.

Example: If you learned {N}, you knew.

Answer: If you DON’T learn, you know.

Example: If you learned {N}, you knew {N}.

Answer: If you DON’T learn, you DON’T know.

Example: If you learned, you knew {N}.

Answer: If you learn, you DON’T know.

*****
TASK

1. If you learned, you knew {?}

2. If you learn {N}, you know.

3. If you learned, you WOULD know {?}

4. If you HAD learned, you WOULD HAVE known {N}.

5. If you learn, you WILL know {N}.

6. If you learned, you WOULD know {N}.

7. If you HAD learned, you WOULD HAVE known {?}

8. If you learn, you WILL know {?}

9. If you learned {N}, you WOULD know.

10. If you HAD learned {N}, you WOULD HAVE known {?}

Exercise 62. We can be back with someone we met in EXERCISE 37. Ms. Seges appeared already in Part One of our grammar course.

We were learning about personal pronouns, then (CHAPTER 1). Now we may think about our time frames, real-time and Modal. We can think about time frames also when the story is fictional.

It is weekend, late morning. Mr. Seges ― he never appeared in our grammar story before ― returns from a literary meeting.

Example: Ms. Seges is home, in her study. Though she had worked most of the night on her new book, she would be analyzing some old papers, now.

Answer: Ms. Seges is home.

Though she had worked most of the night on her new book,

she would be analyzing some old papers, now.

We can view Modal structures as modified real-time phrases
(SUB-CHAPTER 10.1).
Here, the phrase is not about a theory.
In our story, Ms. Seges is in her study, analyzing some old papers.

Let us compare a theory:
There is something very interesting about the old papers.
Otherwise, she would be sleeping.

*****

TASK

1. MR. SEGES: Honey, I’m back. What are you doing?

2. MS. SEGES: I’d be reading horoscopes.
(Ms. Seges never reads horoscopes.)

3. That is…?
(Mr. Seges does not believe she would ever read horoscopes.)

4. This looks like a calligraphic copy of Vespucci’s letters. It was slipping out of our backyard hedge, no covers or front matter.

5. “Hadn’t it sure taken a lot to make such a book, I’d suspect that Babbitt next door.

6. You remember, Bill wrote the book I was looking for was as likely to be obtained as a calligraphic of Vespucci’s originals.

7. And it was the title the Babbitt gave me. It was completely a fairy-tale, Bill even checked with the Freeman’s.”

8. About legends, my favorite Chicago blend is…

9. Honey, I would have remembered about the coffee; but I was so preoccupied…

10. I’m putting that with my records. The coffee is not a fairy-tale. It continues to exist somewhere in Chicago.

*****

From the key: Let us remember about text rich interpretation, as in EXERCISE 55. Babbitt is a character by Sinclair Lewis, an American writer. The Freeman’s is a famous auction house to specialize also in books.

Amerigo Vespucci described his voyages in letters to Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de Medici. Calligraphic copies were still quite a habit for most important documents, in Vespucci’s times.

*****

Skimming can encourage effective learning; feel welcome to have a peek into EXERCISE 64, before doing this one.

Exercise 63. Let us focus on Form Relativity with the Progressive. We remember about the earthling proper egoism (please compare SUB-CHAPTER 8.1).

We have the value {IN} next to the verb to go with the Progressive. However, we can stay {ON} our cognitive grounds for qualities, hearts and minds (CHAPTER 7).

Example: {PAST}, he, N 1. (be) extremely busy, 2. (remember) {IN} to bring that brand coffee.

Answer: If he had not been extremely busy, he would have remembered to bring that brand coffee.

Our symbolics:
A CLOSED MODAL FRAME, AND GRAMMATICAL TARGET PAST.

Please think if to use FORM RELATIVITY in example 2. A non-relative form will show a number of activities different from the relative. We can use Modals other than WILL, too.

*****

1. {PRESENT}, she, N read {IN} the calligraphic, she, sleep {IN}.
(She worked on her new book all night.)

2. {PAST}, he, N write {IN}, he, read or talk {IN}.
(The colloquium was very engaging.)

3. {PAST}, he, N hear {IN} from Bill then, {PRESENT}, he, write {IN} him a letter now.

4. {PRESENT}, it, N be {IN} such a good quality, she, think it a mere prank.

5. {FUTURE}, it, N sustain {IN} the quality throughout, it, compare {IN} with the Bodleian Horace and Francis Crease talent.

6. {FUTURE}, they, look in the library, they, get the Medici print.
(Someone most probably made it from the Medici print.)

7. {PRESENT}, it, N be so conscientious, he, throw it in that Babbitt’s garden next door.

8. {FUTURE}, it, prove necessary, she, have it carbon dated.

9. {PRESENT}, it, be as good as it looks, it, M be of worth even as just a calligraphic.

10. {PAST} it, N deprive of the front matter, {PRESENT}, it, be {IN} easier to find out who made it.

Feel welcome to some more exercise. We are gradually getting independent of cues. Real-time, we people speak without them.
10.4. MORE WORKOUT FOR REAL-TIME TALK

*****

10.1. THE UNREAL PAST OR CONDITIONAL: REAL TIME

Let us try a few more quotes.

More than that, and breaking precedent once more, I do not intend to commence any sentence with these words ― “If George Washington had been alive today”, or “If Thomas Jefferson”, or “If Alexander Hamilton”, or “If Abraham Lincoln had been alive today…”
Theodore Roosevelt, American President

PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT

Grammar resources might label the quote from Theodore Roosevelt as the 3rd Conditional, Unreal Past, or even the Past Unreal Conditional, dependent on the grammar approach solely.

Some of those resources would tell we build the 3rd Conditional of the Past Perfect and the Future in the Past.

We would have to recognize the Past Perfect for a potentially Unreal form, then.

Worse still, our “Unreal Past Perfect” would be as good as merely a fancy. Please compare a quote from Gerald Ford.

If Lincoln were alive today, he’d be turning over in his grave.

PRESIDENT GERALD FORD.

It is not only for our pension plans that we might be unwilling to have the Past Perfect for merely a fancy.

With Perfect tenses overall, our syntactic HAVE helps tell about real time. It has an open, real-time frame. To compare physical space, we might think about paths or routes on real ground.

{TO} is our cognitive variable.
We have the variable to render duration and time spans.

With the Unreal grammatical time or Conditional, HAVE brings hypothetical time. It is not part the real map, then.

It comes with an auxiliary compass for relative time, and closes the frame for the theory. We attach the auxiliary compass to the Modal.

Our cognitive variable is {ON}.

Duration and time span become generalized.
We have called it our Modal Net.

Whether our verb would be to read, to speak, to run, to stop, or to jump, duration becomes non-essential, with a theory closed frame.

The matter is exactly the same with the anchor HAVE in Theodore Roosevelt’s quote. The phrase, “had been alive”, is not concerned with longevity or shortness of life.

The phrase narrates about being alive generally, and we could quote Gerald Ford’s wording, “were alive” for an exact paraphrase.

Naturally, we might note that live people would not be likely staying in their graves, but our thing here is to work grammar for language uses as they are, even if absolutely abstract or humorous.

We may recur to CHAPTER 10. Our example was
“If you HAD eaten the cookie, you WOULD NOT HAVE had it (at some later, but still PAST time)”.

Again, the anchor HAVE pays no heed to the length of time it takes to eat a cookie. It helps mind if the cookie remains, or has been consumed in the course of events.

The syntactic role is narrative, not factual.
We may compare SUB-CHAPTER 9.2.
I thought the handle MIGHT HAVE / COULD HAVE broken off.
(It turned out it was still in place.)

However we know the theory was against fact, we can tell our story with the anchor HAVE.

About stories and their telling, the Conditional or grammatical “unreal time” are often backtrack logic: we look to the consequent, to speculate on the premise.

Let us think if language might transfer features.

We can view the phrase had eaten as a transfer of the syntactic anchor from the consequent.

We may think about a similar transfer for the Passive, where the object becomes the subject and the predicate adapts.

We do not need to view the anchor HAVE as the real-time Past Perfect. For speculation as “had been alive” or “were alive”, the choice is purely stylistic.

Let us try another president quote.

*****

“If I had permitted my failures, or what seemed to me at the time a lack of success, to discourage me, I cannot see any way in which I would ever have made progress.”
Calvin Coolidge, American President

CALVIN COOLIDGE IN 1910, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Grammar resources might label the above as the 2nd Conditional, or view the phrase “I WOULD have made progress” as a Modal modification of a real-time “I HAVE made progress”.

The argument might be, the words definitely refer to a time span, between some time PAST and PRESENT, in which progress has been made.

Let us consider two views to our syntactic structures. We began building our language structures joining the grammatical Person, Time, and Aspect.

Modal verbs have brought form relativity and auxiliary grammatical time. Let us picture these language components.

Let us think where the verb TO HAVE might occur, as an auxiliary or head verb.

For the auxiliary time, we may compare SUB-CHAPTER 9.1.
Modality is not indispensable:
We can have auxiliary time without it, too.
I am happy to have exercised;
I was happy to have exercised;
I will be happy to have exercised.

Let us change the verb “to exercise” into the verb phrase “to make progress”.
I am happy to have made progress;
I was happy to have made progress;
I will be happy to have made progress.

Let us modify our infinitive with the Modal form MAY.
I am happy I may have made progress;
I was happy I might have made progress.
I will be happy I may have made progress.

We can view phrases as modified, as well. Our view is likely to depend on the context and word sense, namely, if a phrase looks a theory, or not.

The progress in Calvin Coolidge quote is not a theory.
I cannot see any way in which I would HAVE made progress.

Our symbolics is to help comprehend.
For Calvin Coolidge quote, we can use
MODAL MEDIATION, REAL-TIME OPEN FRAME.

For a theory, we may compare,
But the obstacles, she WOULD HAVE made progress.
But she has not made any progress.
The symbolics to help see the difference can be
A CLOSED MODAL FRAME.

*****

Let us think how the Modal frame closes. With our modified infinitive above, Modality is attached as a subordinate clause. It does not make the main grammatical time.

Let us compare Modality for our main or head, real time.

If someone asked,
“What HAS she BEEN doing?”
An answer as,
“She MAY HAVE BEEN working”,
would close the hypothetical time on the grammatical and real-time PRESENT, just as the question.

Saying, “She MAY HAVE finished by tomorrow”, or “She WILL HAVE finished by tomorrow”, we would close our hypothetical time on tomorrow.

We can use our auxiliary time extent with all grammatical time, but we need to mind the form of the Modal verb alone, for the main time.

PRESENT Modal forms tend towards the grammatical PRESENT or FUTURE.

If we say we CAN or MAY work, the hypothesis goes into the FUTURE a little. Our Modal frame remains open.

Modal shapes we class as PAST tend towards the PAST or PRESENT. It is only with the open frame that we can use PAST Modal forms for the grammatical FUTURE.

We might say,
“We COULD do this tomorrow,”
but without auxiliary HAVE.

For our main time, we would not produce forms as
*She COULD HAVE / MIGHT HAVE finished by tomorrow.

The only exception would be the Modal WILL itself, but it is our regular mapping word for the FUTURE.
She WOULD HAVE finished by tomorrow.

The form “CAN” is quite special. We use it to tell what we are really able to do; we have the skill, or even mastery and finesse. Many grammar resources discourage closing the frame on it in the Affirmative, whatever the grammatical time.

If we are tentative about a future result, we can say
“Maybe it WILL HAVE ended by tomorrow”.
We may view the structure as the real-time Future Perfect, with an open real-time frame.

*****

Language is not a record or chronicle. It does not require absolute certainty about things coming true, or confirmation in events, for the thought to be real and for the structure to be grammatical.

*****

Do we need to resolve between labels as “Unreal Past” or “Conditional”? Let us mark individual verbs for grammatical form, in these words by Franklin Delano Roosevelt:

“No group and no Government CAN (FORM: PRESENT) properly prescribe precisely what SHOULD (FORM: PAST) constitute the body of knowledge with which true education is (FORM: PRESENT) concerned.”

It is obvious there must be a relative interpretation for grammatical from, and the extent for this relativity embraces the verb phrase.

A verb phrase can be one verb, or a verb structure, as with auxiliary HAVE.

Classing entire stretches of language as Conditional or Unreal Past, we might feel lost for the main time. We can stay by terms as “a relative verb form”, or “verb form relativity”.

Verb forms would be relative to the main grammatical time, the reference we make for the real time.

*****

Well, we may have worked out some logic. If we were lazy, we would have been doing something else for the past hour.

For a competent insight into our syntax, let us consider the Progressive. Feel welcome.
10.2. FORM RELATIVITY: THE PROGRESSIVE

*****

CHAPTER 10. FORM RELATIVITY GALORE

With Modal verbs and patterns as the Conditional or Unreal Past, we may feel about language form more as a reflection.

Let us see if we could apply our MODAL TIME FRAME to guidance on the Unreal Past or the Conditional.

*****

There has been much dispute over the Conditional. Some grammarians reject it altogether.

Let us remember that labeling does not change the objective language reality. It cannot decide on how linguistic forms may work within human discourse.

*****

Let us use Conditional patterns, to compare language forms. We mind our target grammatical time, the PRESENT, PAST, or FUTURE.

We can practice with the verb TO HAVE. It can mean keeping, tolerating, or eating something.

As a syntactic verb, HAVE may provide the auxiliary time for Modal verbs. Let us look to the syntax and negotiation of meaning: how do we eat a cookie and have it?

Our cookie is perfectly digestible. To choose on the word sense, we can underline the “HAVE” to mean keeping, tolerating, or eating.

We look to the premise (if you eat the cookie) and the consequent (you do not have it).

In PRACTICE 9.4. we viewed time as on a symbolic line.

ZERO CONDITIONAL

TARGET GRAMMATICAL TIME: THE PRESENT

83. If you eat the cookie, you DO NOT have it.

LANGUAGE FORM: PRESENT

If you eat {PRESENT}, you DO {PRESENT} NOT have

*****

1ST CONDITIONAL

TARGET GRAMMATICAL TIME: THE FUTURE

84. If you eat the cookie, you WILL NOT have it.

LANGUAGE FORM: PRESENT

If you eat {PRESENT}, you WILL {PRESENT} NOT have

We began our journey viewing the verb form “WILL” in the Fields of Time.

We noted there is not really a FUTURE shape for the verb form WILL.
We do not say *will will.

The verb form WILL maps on the FUTURE already in the PRESENT grammatical shape.

We can compare Modal uses of WILL
85. She WILL be reading now.
(I am sure she is reading now.)

*****

2ND CONDITIONAL

TARGET GRAMMATICAL TIME: THE PRESENT

86. If you ate the cookie, you WOULD NOT have it.

LANGUAGE FORM: PAST

If you ate {PAST}, you WOULD {PAST} NOT have

*****

3RD CONDITIONAL

TARGET GRAMMATICAL TIME: THE PAST

87. If you had eaten the cookie, you WOULD NOT have had it.

LANGUAGE FORM: ANTECEDENT PAST

If you had eaten {ANTECEDENT PAST},
you WOULD NOT have {ANTECEDENT PAST} had

*****

4TH (MIXED) CONDITIONAL

TARGET GRAMMATICAL TIME: THE PAST and PRESENT

88. If you had eaten the cookie, you WOULD NOT have it.

LANGUAGE FORM: ANTECEDENT PAST and PAST

If you had eaten {ANTECEDENT PAST},
you WOULD {PAST} NOT have

*****

We have marked our HAVES: If you HAD eaten the cookie, you WOULD NOT HAVE had it then.

The syntactic HAVE is green. The head verb, the notional HAVE is mauve and underlined. It may mean keeping, tolerating, or. . . eating something.

We may compare examples about Chantelle Règle having her extra Larousse, in SUB-CHAPTER 8.1.

Syntax can make us prone to interpret the notional HAVE as keeping something, in examples as 91a―d, though we can eat meals as well as have them.

Do we have to adopt the Conditional, to use Conditional patterns? Let us compare ideas.

Some grammars will say we use the First Conditional when the probability of something is high, and we use the Second for things more probable than those in the Third.

Grammars that reject the Conditional may support structures they name the Unreal Past. Let us consider the probability for saying,

89. If I WERE you, I WOULD . . .
(Please find the comment on the use of WERE also in exercise 62.)

*****

Skimming can be part an effective learning strategy. We can go backward and forward in our study guides, to get a picture of the language itself. The more study guides, the better.

*****

The PROBABILITY to become another human individual literally and ever really is ZERO, for everyone.

90. *I AM you . . . / *You ARE me . . . ?
(There is zero probability, even if someone pretends another person.)

Example 92 could be the Second Conditional or Unreal Past. Regardless of the label, it conveys zero probability, for the PRESENT, PAST, as well as FUTURE.

What would be if he were …

… if he were her … and if she were him …?

Bob says an unreal past could not exist without an unreal present or future, and he really wants to go to the Himalayas.

Alice says there never could be literally such a time as unreal time; just as well, you could try to have a cat for an unreal dog.

She pretends she is seeing bubbles, when it comes to unreal reality, and practices that too, sometimes.

Feel welcome to the GRAMMAR GRAPEVINE.

Chantelle says the world’s worst advice she ever got always came with someone saying, “If I were you…”

She skips the phrase owing to her language economy, also when she listens. She feels different about saying or hearing, “If I were in your shoes…”

“I’d have fresh veg every morning.”

Bob is not thinking about the high Himalaya: he is too small. It is not only in highest mountainous areas we may want to manage, however.

91. If you HAD NOT taken care of it, this handle WOULD HAVE broken off.

Within the probability approach, example 91 is the 3rd Conditional, which tells about the least probable events. The example yet might be telling about a prevented thing.

Let us think about probability a little further.

92. If you take care of this handle now, it still MIGHT work.
(The probability is low.)

We can transform the example and say,

92a. If you take care of this handle now, it WILL work.
(The probability is very high.)

Both 92 and 92a could receive the same label — of the First Conditional — and they differ in PROBABILITY very much.

In 92, taking care of the handle is probable to result in its working.

In 92a, the probability amounts to CERTAINTY. Taking care of the handle is sure to bring a working condition.

PROBABILITY is not going to explain on the use of forms. Let us try LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY.

“It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, American President

Let us sum up. For theory or guesswork, we can use

PRESENT verb forms to speak about the FUTURE,
PAST forms to speak about the PRESENT,
and
ANTECEDENT PAST forms to speak about the PAST.

Feel welcome to
10.1. THE CONDITIONAL OR UNREAL PAST: REAL TIME.

*****

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: