Watch a recording of this LearnEnglish webinar on the topic of virtual reality. It reviews and practises the second conditional and is for B1 level learners.
Discussion
Dear Jonathan,
Many thanks for your crystal-clear explanation. I totally agree with what you were saying about "correctness" judged from the viewpoints of standard grammar and real-life usage. Your remarks were wonderful.
Another new topic is about the words "understand", "know" and "believe". Can I use these three words with the Present Perfect Tense without a time reference (for or since) to mean as indicated in the brackets ?
E.g. :
[1] I'm having a conflict with my teacher and I have already known he will fail me on the exam (in the sense that I'm already aware that he will fail me on the exam).
[2] Now, I have already understood your problem. I will help you solve it (in the sense that now, I have had a good understanding of your problem).
[3] I've been telling you a long story about him, but you still haven't believed me yet (in the sense that you think I'm lying)
Is it grammatically correct to use the three words like that ?
I would appreciate it very much if you could give me a detailed explanation.
1 is not standard usage, though it's certainly intelligible. Unlike translations of the word in some other languages, the verb 'know' in English doesn't normally include the idea of 'discover' or 'find out'. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by 'have already known' here, but if so, that's non-standard use. If what you mean is that you are sure he will fail you, the best form is a present simple one such as 'I know he will fail me' or 'I'm sure he's going to fail me' or 'I just know he's going to fail me'. Even if you are having this idea at the moment of speaking, the present simple is the best form (if I've understood your meaning).
For 2, I'm not sure I understand the context well. We normally use 'now' to signal that we've just understood something and so saying 'already' is incongruent with this. Is it something you already knew before speaking or have you just now realised? The two don't work together well like this. If you removed 'already', then the sentence would be fine, though I'd remove the comma after 'now'. It would then mean that you just then understood the problem and that you promised to help.
In 3 I would recommend using the present simple without 'yet' ('but you still don't believe me'). I wouldn't say it's completely wrong to use the present perfect and/or 'yet', but I can't think of a situation when it would sound natural. Similar to 'know', 'believe' generally doesn't refer to a change in belief, but rather a general thought, if that makes any sense.
I hope this helps you. In the future, could you please post your comments on pages that are more relevant? This page is about second conditionals, but one on the present perfect would be more appropriate.
Dear Jonathan,
I can't thank you enough for your excellently detailed and clear explanation.
I feel absolutely exhilarated that I've gained a good understanding about the use of "would" in the first conditional. You've been really helpful to me.
As you explained to me earlier that this structure is considered correct only in real-life spoken English, but not in the formal English grammar.
Do you think that this is the reason why (on page 5 of the Conditionals : zero, first and second) Peter confirms that this structure is not correct because we cannot mix a true, possible or likely condition with a hypothetical result ?
Q&A on page 5 reads as follows:
Which is correct to say?
If I have a job, that would be great.
or
If I have a job, that will be great.
Submitted by Peter M. on Sun, 27/11/2022 - 09:21
Hello Amani Sweidan,
The second sentence is correct.
If I have... describes a true, possible or likely condition, and you cannot mix this with a hypothetical result. Thus, would is not possible and will is correct.
Possibly so. I can't speak for Peter, but I do know that many users of this site are learning English as part of formal studies or in order to take exams, and therefore they want to focus primarily on grammatical correctness. In the question you mentioned, the first sentence would likely be marked incorrect in an English exam, for the reason that Peter explained (and I agree with him). However, if someone were to say that in the middle of a real-life conversation, it still communicates the meaning acceptably, despite not being 'correct'. That's why in my earlier comment I put the word 'correctness' in inverted commas - because it depends on what 'correctness' actually means and what context of language use you are talking about. In real-life conversation, being correct in a grammatical sense is less important than being correct in the sense of saying something appropriate, relevant and understandable. Even though that sentence is grammatically incorrect, it is still clear enough to allow the conversation to continue, and is therefore correct according to conversational norms.
Dear Jonathan,
Thanks so much again for your excellent explanation.
Now, I've caught on that using "would" in the first conditionals always depends on something to happen first (a dependency) in order to get the hypothetical action in the main clause to become a reality.
[1] Is it correct if I use this structure in the following context ?
E.g. : "If you get the job, it would be great". The implicit nuance in my mind is that it depends on how intelligent you are or how hard you have to compete with the other applicants so that you can finally manage to get the job and as such you will become great. Or in other words the implicit nuance is "if you can finally manage to beat the other applicants and as such it will be great".
[2] In comprison, if I use "will" (If you get the job, it will be great), in my mind, there is no implicit nuance as stated above.
Is my assumption right ?
I'd appreciate it very much if you would help me again with your clear explanation.
[1] Yes, right! That sentence expresses your idea. Listeners would not necessarily infer that particular nuance that you intended, of course. Going by the words of the sentence alone, listeners just know that "it would be great" is dependent on something in order to become real, which could be the condition clause ("if you get the job") or something else unstated.
Dear Jonathan,
Thanks a million for your great and super detailed explanation.
"If we invite him, Adam would visit us on Monday".
This structure is very important for me and I'd like to get it correctly. So, please help me out.
[1] Since Adam's visit depends simply on us inviting him, we can use the sentence with the same meaning as the first conditional "will" : If we invite him, Adam will visit us on Monday"
Is my assumption right?
[2] Since Adam's visit on Monday is dependent on something else (unspecified here) to happen first and we don't know for sure what the dependency will be, for example, whether he'll have time to visit us, or whether he feels it important to accept our invitation, etc. In this case, does this sentence have the same meaning as : "If we invite him, Adam will probably visit us on Monday" ?
We change "would" to "will probably" to indicate that we don't know whether he will visit us Monday or not, his visit is not certain depending on the dependency to happen first.
I would highly appreciate your explanation.
Best regards,
Melvin
[2] The "will probably" sentence is roughly equivalent in meaning, but not exactly the same. "Would" shows a dependency on something else in order to become a reality, but "will probably" does not necessarily show a dependency (the "probable-ness" of his visit may be because Adam usually attends these sorts of invitations, for example). Also, "will probably" expresses the speaker's view on the probability of Adam visiting (which is high, if we invite him). "Would" does not give any information about whether it is probable or not that he visits.
Again I feel the need to point out that we are analysing and possibly over-analysing words in isolation from their context. It's not always the case that speakers consider and intend such precise nuance in what they say. If the context is, for example, simply that the speaker wants to establish the date of Adam's potential visit, then all of the examples that we've discussed would do the job, and the differences in meaning between the various sentences that we have discussed would be unintended and irrelevant for the speakers/listeners. That may or may not be the case here - but it's worth bearing in mind!
Dear Jonathan,
Thank you so much for your great explanation.
"If we invite him, Adam would visit us on Monday".
So, the whole implication of this sentence would be that it is likely we invite Adam (something doable - first conditional if clause) and we are aware that he will not be able to visit us on Monday because just say, he will be away then (the use of "would" - second conditional). In other words, the complete sentence should be "If we invite him, Adam would visit us on Monday if he weren't away" with the second conditional if-clause "if he weren't away" being left out.
Is my analysis correct ?
No, that's not quite it. If we are aware that Adam will not be able to visit us on Monday, it should be: (Even) if we invited him, Adam would not visit us on Monday. Knowing already that Adam cannot visit, it would therefore be very unlikely for us to invite him, so invited reflects this unlikeliness. It's a regular second conditional.
Back to the sentence you asked about: If we invite him, Adam would visit us on Monday. Yes, here it is likely that we invite Adam. But "would" in the second clause doesn't show a negative action (such as "we think Adam will NOT visit us"). It shows that the action (Adam coming) is still only hypothetical, i.e., not yet a reality, and it is dependent on something in order for it to happen. There are a couple of ways to interpret this dependency.
Adam's coming depends simply on us inviting him (i.e., the first clause in the sentence). In this case, the meaning is the same as using "will": If we invite him, Adam will visit us on Monday.
Adam's coming depends on something else, unspecified in this sentence. For instance, will Adam actually accept our invitation? If we do not know that he will accept, or we don’t want to assume his acceptance, we can use ‘would’ to show this. In other words, Adam's coming needs his acceptance to happen first in order to become reality. In comparison, using ‘will’ shows more certainty that he will actually accept our invitation and seems to assume that he will automatically accept it.
I should emphasise here that my explanation about knowing or not knowing whether he will accept our invitation is just an example. We should be a bit careful not to over-analyse sentences which are removed from their context, since the context (e.g. who the speakers are, their relationships and history, the purpose of the invitation …) provides information that helps speakers and listeners to make and interpret meanings more exactly in the situation. We obviously do not have access to that information, and may not be able to know for sure what meaning was intended or understood.
Dear Jonathan,
Many thanks for your crystal-clear explanation. I totally agree with what you were saying about "correctness" judged from the viewpoints of standard grammar and real-life usage. Your remarks were wonderful.
Another new topic is about the words "understand", "know" and "believe". Can I use these three words with the Present Perfect Tense without a time reference (for or since) to mean as indicated in the brackets ?
E.g. :
[1] I'm having a conflict with my teacher and I have already known he will fail me on the exam (in the sense that I'm already aware that he will fail me on the exam).
[2] Now, I have already understood your problem. I will help you solve it (in the sense that now, I have had a good understanding of your problem).
[3] I've been telling you a long story about him, but you still haven't believed me yet (in the sense that you think I'm lying)
Is it grammatically correct to use the three words like that ?
I would appreciate it very much if you could give me a detailed explanation.
Best regards,
Melvin
Hello Melvin,
1 is not standard usage, though it's certainly intelligible. Unlike translations of the word in some other languages, the verb 'know' in English doesn't normally include the idea of 'discover' or 'find out'. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by 'have already known' here, but if so, that's non-standard use. If what you mean is that you are sure he will fail you, the best form is a present simple one such as 'I know he will fail me' or 'I'm sure he's going to fail me' or 'I just know he's going to fail me'. Even if you are having this idea at the moment of speaking, the present simple is the best form (if I've understood your meaning).
For 2, I'm not sure I understand the context well. We normally use 'now' to signal that we've just understood something and so saying 'already' is incongruent with this. Is it something you already knew before speaking or have you just now realised? The two don't work together well like this. If you removed 'already', then the sentence would be fine, though I'd remove the comma after 'now'. It would then mean that you just then understood the problem and that you promised to help.
In 3 I would recommend using the present simple without 'yet' ('but you still don't believe me'). I wouldn't say it's completely wrong to use the present perfect and/or 'yet', but I can't think of a situation when it would sound natural. Similar to 'know', 'believe' generally doesn't refer to a change in belief, but rather a general thought, if that makes any sense.
I hope this helps you. In the future, could you please post your comments on pages that are more relevant? This page is about second conditionals, but one on the present perfect would be more appropriate.
All the best,
Kirk
LearnEnglish team
Dear Jonathan,
I can't thank you enough for your excellently detailed and clear explanation.
I feel absolutely exhilarated that I've gained a good understanding about the use of "would" in the first conditional. You've been really helpful to me.
As you explained to me earlier that this structure is considered correct only in real-life spoken English, but not in the formal English grammar.
Do you think that this is the reason why (on page 5 of the Conditionals : zero, first and second) Peter confirms that this structure is not correct because we cannot mix a true, possible or likely condition with a hypothetical result ?
Q&A on page 5 reads as follows:
Which is correct to say?
If I have a job, that would be great.
or
If I have a job, that will be great.
Submitted by Peter M. on Sun, 27/11/2022 - 09:21
Hello Amani Sweidan,
The second sentence is correct.
If I have... describes a true, possible or likely condition, and you cannot mix this with a hypothetical result. Thus, would is not possible and will is correct.
I'd highly appreciate your explanation.
Best regards,
Melvin
Hi Melvin,
That's good news! I'm really glad.
Possibly so. I can't speak for Peter, but I do know that many users of this site are learning English as part of formal studies or in order to take exams, and therefore they want to focus primarily on grammatical correctness. In the question you mentioned, the first sentence would likely be marked incorrect in an English exam, for the reason that Peter explained (and I agree with him). However, if someone were to say that in the middle of a real-life conversation, it still communicates the meaning acceptably, despite not being 'correct'. That's why in my earlier comment I put the word 'correctness' in inverted commas - because it depends on what 'correctness' actually means and what context of language use you are talking about. In real-life conversation, being correct in a grammatical sense is less important than being correct in the sense of saying something appropriate, relevant and understandable. Even though that sentence is grammatically incorrect, it is still clear enough to allow the conversation to continue, and is therefore correct according to conversational norms.
Jonathan
LearnEnglish team
Dear Jonathan,
Thanks so much again for your excellent explanation.
Now, I've caught on that using "would" in the first conditionals always depends on something to happen first (a dependency) in order to get the hypothetical action in the main clause to become a reality.
[1] Is it correct if I use this structure in the following context ?
E.g. : "If you get the job, it would be great". The implicit nuance in my mind is that it depends on how intelligent you are or how hard you have to compete with the other applicants so that you can finally manage to get the job and as such you will become great. Or in other words the implicit nuance is "if you can finally manage to beat the other applicants and as such it will be great".
[2] In comprison, if I use "will" (If you get the job, it will be great), in my mind, there is no implicit nuance as stated above.
Is my assumption right ?
I'd appreciate it very much if you would help me again with your clear explanation.
Best regards,
Melvin
Hi Melvin,
[1] Yes, right! That sentence expresses your idea. Listeners would not necessarily infer that particular nuance that you intended, of course. Going by the words of the sentence alone, listeners just know that "it would be great" is dependent on something in order to become real, which could be the condition clause ("if you get the job") or something else unstated.
[2] Yes, indeed!
It seems like you've gained a good understanding.
Jonathan
LearnEnglish team
Dear Jonathan,
Thanks a million for your great and super detailed explanation.
"If we invite him, Adam would visit us on Monday".
This structure is very important for me and I'd like to get it correctly. So, please help me out.
[1] Since Adam's visit depends simply on us inviting him, we can use the sentence with the same meaning as the first conditional "will" : If we invite him, Adam will visit us on Monday"
Is my assumption right?
[2] Since Adam's visit on Monday is dependent on something else (unspecified here) to happen first and we don't know for sure what the dependency will be, for example, whether he'll have time to visit us, or whether he feels it important to accept our invitation, etc. In this case, does this sentence have the same meaning as : "If we invite him, Adam will probably visit us on Monday" ?
We change "would" to "will probably" to indicate that we don't know whether he will visit us Monday or not, his visit is not certain depending on the dependency to happen first.
I would highly appreciate your explanation.
Best regards,
Melvin
Hi melvinthio,
No problem! I am glad it was helpful.
[1] Yes, right.
[2] The "will probably" sentence is roughly equivalent in meaning, but not exactly the same. "Would" shows a dependency on something else in order to become a reality, but "will probably" does not necessarily show a dependency (the "probable-ness" of his visit may be because Adam usually attends these sorts of invitations, for example). Also, "will probably" expresses the speaker's view on the probability of Adam visiting (which is high, if we invite him). "Would" does not give any information about whether it is probable or not that he visits.
Again I feel the need to point out that we are analysing and possibly over-analysing words in isolation from their context. It's not always the case that speakers consider and intend such precise nuance in what they say. If the context is, for example, simply that the speaker wants to establish the date of Adam's potential visit, then all of the examples that we've discussed would do the job, and the differences in meaning between the various sentences that we have discussed would be unintended and irrelevant for the speakers/listeners. That may or may not be the case here - but it's worth bearing in mind!
Jonathan
LearnEnglish team
Dear Jonathan,
Thank you so much for your great explanation.
"If we invite him, Adam would visit us on Monday".
So, the whole implication of this sentence would be that it is likely we invite Adam (something doable - first conditional if clause) and we are aware that he will not be able to visit us on Monday because just say, he will be away then (the use of "would" - second conditional). In other words, the complete sentence should be "If we invite him, Adam would visit us on Monday if he weren't away" with the second conditional if-clause "if he weren't away" being left out.
Is my analysis correct ?
I would highly appreciate your clear explanation.
Best regards,
Melvin
Dear Melvin,
No, that's not quite it. If we are aware that Adam will not be able to visit us on Monday, it should be: (Even) if we invited him, Adam would not visit us on Monday. Knowing already that Adam cannot visit, it would therefore be very unlikely for us to invite him, so invited reflects this unlikeliness. It's a regular second conditional.
Back to the sentence you asked about: If we invite him, Adam would visit us on Monday. Yes, here it is likely that we invite Adam. But "would" in the second clause doesn't show a negative action (such as "we think Adam will NOT visit us"). It shows that the action (Adam coming) is still only hypothetical, i.e., not yet a reality, and it is dependent on something in order for it to happen. There are a couple of ways to interpret this dependency.
I should emphasise here that my explanation about knowing or not knowing whether he will accept our invitation is just an example. We should be a bit careful not to over-analyse sentences which are removed from their context, since the context (e.g. who the speakers are, their relationships and history, the purpose of the invitation …) provides information that helps speakers and listeners to make and interpret meanings more exactly in the situation. We obviously do not have access to that information, and may not be able to know for sure what meaning was intended or understood.
Jonathan
LearnEnglish team