Look at these examples to see how third and mixed conditionals are used.
We would have walked to the top of the mountain if the weather hadn't been so bad.
If we'd moved to Scotland when I was a child, I would have a Scottish accent now.
If she was really my friend, she wouldn't have lied to me.
Try this exercise to test your grammar.
- Grammar test 1
Read the explanation to learn more.
Grammar explanation
Do you know how to use third and mixed conditionals?
Third conditionals and mixed conditionals
Conditionals describe the result of a certain condition. The if clause tells you the condition (If I hadn't been ill) and the main clause tells you the result (I would have gone to the party). The order of the clauses does not change the meaning.
If I hadn't been ill, I would have gone to the party.
I would have gone to the party if I hadn't been ill.
Conditional sentences are often divided into different types.
Third conditional
The third conditional is used to imagine a different past. We imagine a change in a past situation and the different result of that change.
If I had understood the instructions properly, I would have passed the exam.
We wouldn't have got lost if my phone hadn't run out of battery.
In third conditional sentences, the structure is usually: If + past perfect >> would have + past participle.
Mixed conditionals
We can use mixed conditionals when we imagine a past change with a result in the present or a present change with a result in the past.
1. Past/Present
Here's a sentence imagining how a change in a past situation would have a result in the present.
If I hadn't got the job in Tokyo, I wouldn't be with my current partner.
So the structure is: If + past perfect >> would + infinitive.
2. Present/Past
Here's a sentence imagining how a different situation in the present would mean that the past was different as well.
It's really important. If it wasn't, I wouldn't have called you on your holiday.
And the structure is: If + past simple >> would have + past participle.
Do this exercise to test your grammar again.
- Grammar test 2
Is ok if I say, I would not have thought, I would go this far. can we use I would have without if?
Hello Saifalchalabi,
Yes, you certainly can use would in that way. Some people like to think of there being an implied if-clause (e.g. II would go this far [if it were my decision]) but I don't think it's necessary or helpful in all contexts.
Would is also common in some other hypothetical or non-factual contexts (e.g. I wish you wouldn't do that!) and in some polite formulations (e.g. Would you like a drink?).
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello The LearnEnglish Team,
I saw an example of the mixed conditional clauses in an article:
"His 426th and last ever goal came in his first El Classico, classic Kun always stepping up in the biggest games, if we knew it'd be his last we'd have celebrated it more".
The article was talking about Sergio Aguero's retirement from football because of his heart condition, to give you some context.
The question is, why did they use a mixed sentences (if - type 2, main - type 3) here?
> If we knew it'd be (would be) his last (match), we'd have celebrated it more.
while I think it should be "If we had known it'd be his last,....". I suppose they'd known about the fact by the time they made the statement, and of course by now.
Some more examples I've found from the news:
> I would not have let him go if I knew it would be so dangerous.
> If I knew it would be two hours in line, I would have stayed home.
Are these example ungrammatical and uncommon in English and they are only used in conversation (informal contexts)?
Hi HieuNT,
Yes, these examples are ungrammatical in standard English. They are, however, fairly common to see and hear, especially in contexts where precise speaking and writing is not required (e.g. informal conversations). Despite the mixed structures, the speaker's meaning is still pretty clear to understand.
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Thank you again for your answer, Mr. Jonathan R.
I'm a little bit confused about the Third conditionals and Mixed conditional past/present. What is the difference between these two sentences?
1. If I hadn't studied that lesson, I wouldn't have been able to pass the test.
2. If I hadn't studied that lesson, I wouldn't be able to pass the test.
Is it that the first sentence emphasizes that I already passed the test and the second one emphasizes that I just received the test result and I utter this sentence?
Thank you!
Hi Kiefer Hua,
You're right about sentence 1 - it seems that the test has already taken place. About sentence 2, it seems that the test has not yet taken place.
In the situation that you mention (I just received the test result moments ago), I would use sentence 1 for that, since the event of passing the test has already happened.
I hope that helps.
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Nice lesson helpful
Hello everyone!
I wanted to check my level of understanding about structure "Conditionals"
Actually, This structure was too difficult for me to completely understood.
Especially that it was Mixed Conditonals
Oke, now I would write some setences with Structure "If".
1)If I hadn't studied about structer of conditionals,i wouldn't have known how to use it.
2)If i hadn't studied about structure of conditionals, i would know how to use it now
3)If i were you,i had studied about structure of conditionals.
Finally,I hope that you could check my sentences of conditionals,Thanks a lots.
I wish you met a lot of good things in your life.
Hi 0933810273,
It's good to see your practice. :)
Sentences 1 and 2 use the third conditional, which shows an unreal past (i.e., a past situation that did NOT actually happen - we are just imagining it).
Sentence 1 is grammatically correct. It means that you did study the structure, and you do know how to use it.
Sentence 2 is grammatically correct too, but the meaning is a bit confusing. It means that you did study the structure, but you do NOT know how to use it now. This can be the case if, for example, the studying made you feel more confused. Is that what you meant?
In sentence 3, 'if I were you' is normally used to give advice to someone. It's part of a second conditional (unreal present or future). It should be --> If I were you, I would study ...
I hope that helps :)
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Firstly,I wanted to say "Thank You" beacasue you gave for me a lot of useful advices.And then, i wanted to talk to you about the second sentence, i thinked that you understood my mean exactly :)). By writting this sentence which conflicted with my idea. Had you not given for me these advices, i wouldn't have know about my mistake in gramma. Finally,I sincerly thank you again. I hope that you will have many good and lucky things in the life.Bye for now T
Hi 0933810273,
I'm glad! Thanks to you for coming to our site and posting your interesting question. :)
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello,
Please can I check if this is correct?
If he recorded it, he would have told me. (He didn't record it so he didn't tell me)
Thanks!
Hello samchua,
If I understand you correctly, a full third conditional expresses your idea: 'If he had recorded it, he would have told me'.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Thank you! :)
Hi Jonathan
Thanks for your help highly appreciated by me
1)If I didn’t drink too much I’d feel ok
2) if I don’t drink too much I’ll feel ok
Both of the sentences express a general truth so what’s the difference???
A conditional sentence by rule expresses an unreal or real situation
Can you please show me a sentence expressing a real situation.
Best regards
Andi
Hi Andi,
The difference is in how likely these situations are. In 1, the speaker thinks this is unlikely to happen, or even impossible. He/She probably will continue to drink too much. In 2, it is possible or even likely to happen. He/She has a reasonable chance of not drinking too much.
Here are some conditional sentences showing real situations.
-- If water is heated to 100 degrees, it boils.
-- If you get 10 marks, you pass the test.
You can find more examples and explanation about these structures on our Conditionals 1 page. I hope it helps! https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/intermediate-to-upper-i…
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Jonathan
Thanks again for your response
So you’re saying that based in your sentences only a zero conditional expresses a real situation and all other conditionals are unreal??
It / there seems to be a lack of communication.
Which one is correct it or there and can you explain why please.
Best regards
Andi
Hi Andi,
A zero conditional expresses a general truth (real situation). A first conditional expresses a realistic or probable future situation. This is also a real situation - a real future. (Here, 'real' means that the situation has a reasonable chance of occurring in the future, in the speaker's opinion. 'Real' doesn't mean that the situation has already occurred, or is occurring.) If I say, for example, "When I finish work, I'll call you", I'm saying that I will do this with a high degree of certainty (i.e., a real future).
A second conditional expresses an unreal present or future situation, and a third condition expresses an unreal past situation. Here, 'unreal' means these situations are improbable or impossible.
In answer to your second question, both are grammatically possible. 'It' is a reference word, so it needs to refer to another thing mentioned in the conversation (e.g., a problem that the speaker described). 'There' is also possible. 'There seems to be' is a common phrase to introduce the existence or presence of something. We need to know the context in which this sentence is said to know whether 'there' or 'it' is more suitable.
I hope that helps :)
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Jonathan
Thanks a lot for your response
If it wasn’t raining we could go and play tennis.
This is a situation in the present, correct me if I’m wrong, and why “ if it didn’t rain “ isn’t possible here.
If they didn’t want to be successful, people wouldn’t buy these books.
This is a second conditional talking about unreal situations in the present or future.
But how can this be a situation occurring in the present or future when in the if clause we have past tense and in the main clause, future in the past??
Best regards
Andi
Hi Andi,
In the first sentence, it is (presumably) raining at the moment the speaker says this sentence, and we understand rain as something temporary (i.e., not something that will last forever, or something that is always true). So, we need the continuous form ("If it wasn't raining") to show that. If we say "If it didn't rain", that would refer to a permanent state of not raining, i.e., we imagine what would happen if there was no rain at any time, and it does not say anything about whether it is raining at the moment of speaking or not.
In the second sentence, it's important to understand that past verb forms do not always mean past time. They can also refer to unreal present/future situations, as in this example.
The main clause doesn't show future in the past. For comparison, here is an example of future in the past: "The company thought that people wouldn't buy these books." As you can see, the words are similar to your example, and the time of "people wouldn't buy these books" is after the time of "The company thought", but the timeframe of the whole sentence is the past (unlike your sentence, which has a present/future timeframe).
I hope that helps.
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Jonathan
Thank you so much for the long response very helpful and I really appreciate it
Best regards
Andi
Are there any other instances where we use commas in conditional sentences other than when the sentence begins with a dependent clause?
Hello GoldenTeacher1,
As you say, in general, we use a comma when a conditional begins with the dependent clause. I'm afraid I can't definitely say that there are no other circumstances when a comma needs to be used -- there are just too many possible situations. But if you have a specific situation in mind, please feel free to explain it to us and ask us about it.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Natasa Tanasa,
The short answer is that both If I were and If I was are acceptable, and the meaning is the same. But, there is a preference for were, especially in writing.
There's a short explanation on this page (see the Second conditional section) and on this Grammar reference page, with some examples and exercises. I hope they help!
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Jonathan
I’m sorry for commenting in another person’s reply but there is no comment option in here for me to post my comment.
1)If Paul hadn’t been an extreme athlete, Jordan might not have climbed Everest.
2)if Paul weren’t an extreme athlete, Jordan might not have climbed Everest.
What’s the difference between if clauses of 1) and 2) ?? Does 1) mean that Paul is still an extreme athlete and in 2) he is not??
Best regards
Andi
Hi Tony,
No worries. The box to write a new comment is now at the bottom of the page, so have a look there.
Clause 1 (hadn't been - past perfect) shows an unreal past. The sentence means Paul was an extreme athlete at the time when Jordan climbed Everest. (The meaning is limited to that past time. It does not say anything about whether Paul is still an extreme athlete today.)
In clause 2, (weren't - past simple) shows an unreal present. It means that Paul is an extreme athlete. This is understood as a fact that is true and unchanging regardless of time (i.e., it is true in the present, and extends to the past and future as well). In this sentence, it's certain that Paul is still an extreme athlete now.
I hope that helps :)
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Ahmed Imam,
We don't use unless with statements that we know to be true. For example:
In your example, the speaker knows that help was given and so unless cannot be used. The sentence needs to use 'if...not': If he hadn't helped me...
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Ahmed Imam,
It's fine to use in case with past forms. Your sentence is not a so-called second conditional, however, but rather a sentence about a real past event. In your example in case has the meaning 'because it was possible that':
You can use in case with future hypothetical meaning:
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello gsg238,
Yes, that's correct -- well done!
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Graziadb1966,
It's perfectly fine to use certain modal verbs in the if-clause of conditional sentences. In your example 'could change' has the meaning 'were able to change' and so it expresses a different meaning to just 'changed'.
Here are a few other examples of modal verbs used in if-clauses:
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Iman ELBorolos,
The difference is not really about something continuing or not - I think this is a confusing way to try to describe it. Rather, it's about whether the result is in the past or the present. For example:
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello gsg238
Who tells whom and when is irrelevant here as 'he' in your sentences is speculating about the situation.
The first example (found out - would fire) is about the future. He is concerned about a possible, if unlikely, act by his employer in the future.
The second example (had found out - would have fired) is about the past. In this example, he is sure that they do not know as he has not been fired. This sentence means in effect the following: they did not find out because otherwise I would not have a job now.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Ahmed Imam,
Yes :) Both sentences are correct. Their meanings are very similar.
Both sentences mean that this person typically or normally does this. One meaning of will/won't is typical or normal behaviour (see this page for more examples).
But the second sentence has another possible meaning: it could refer to the future. It could be about tomorrow, for example.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello BobMux,
The form if + present (then) + present is used for general statements rather than particular situations. In your example, you are talking about a particular situation, so if + present (then) + will is the correct choice.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello BobMux,
That's the second type of mixed conditional explained on the page above.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello BobMux,
Yes, that's correct. The idea is that athletes take their training very seriously, and this has enabled them to break many records in recent years. If they hadn't been taking their training so seriously (in the recent past and now in the present), then we they wouldn't have broken records (in the recent) nor would they be breaking them nowadays.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team