1. Grammar
  2. B1-B2 grammar
  3. Conditionals: third and mixed

Conditionals: third and mixed

Conditionals: third and mixed

Do you know how to use third conditionals and mixed conditionals? Test what you know with interactive exercises and read the explanation to help you.

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

Conditionals 2: 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

Conditionals 2: Grammar test 2

Try another grammar lesson
Average: 4.2 (103 votes)
Do you need to improve your English grammar?
Join thousands of learners from around the world who are improving their English grammar with our online courses.
Find out more

Hello SepiEnglish,

It is certainly possible that you could hear someone use the sentence that you wrote, and the meaning would be clear.

It is, however, technically not correct because the inheriting of the money spoken about here must be in an imagined past time. The correct form would be 'if you had inherited', which clearly shows this imagined past time. 'if you inherited' suggests an imaginary present or future (not a past).

As the explanation above mentions, it is possible to use 'if' + past simple with 'would have' + past participle, but the ideas expressed are still subject to the laws of physics (so to speak!). In other words, it's strange/illogical to talk about what you would have done in the past if you maybe inherited money later today or tomorrow.

Does that make sense?

Best wishes,
Kirk
LearnEnglish

Profile picture for user berckjr

Submitted by berckjr on Thu, 01/02/2024 - 14:19

Permalink

I've got a question on this subject exploring the possibilities on these conditionals. I've wondered if the following sentences they correct grammarly or if they can be use in spoken language.

If happiness is a destination, I meet you there.
If happiness have been a destination, I meet you there.
If happiness is a destination, I will meet you there.
If happiness have been a destination, I will meet you there.
If happiness were a destination, I would meet you there.
If happiness were a destination, I could meet you there.
I wish happiness be a destination, I would meet you there.
If happiness had been a destination, I would have met you there.
If happiness were a destination, I would have met you there.
If happiness had been a destination, I would meet you there.
If happiness were a destination, I might meet you there.
If happiness were being a destination, I would have met you there.
If happiness were being a destination, I would meet you there.

Thank you.

Hi berckjr,

Let me add a few comments!

  1. If happiness is a destination, I meet you there. - not grammatically correct, as the present simple shows a regular or repeated action, not a single future action. It should be "I will meet ...".
  2. If happiness have been a destination, I meet you there. - the present perfect suggests that this is already finished, so the second part of the sentence doesn't logically follow. Also see correction 1 above.
  3. If happiness is a destination, I will meet you there. - fine!
  4. If happiness have been a destination, I will meet you there. - "I will meet you" is fine, but see correction 2.
  5. If happiness were a destination, I would meet you there. - fine. This means that the speaker thinks that the sentence is untrue or unlikely to be true.
  6. If happiness were a destination, I could meet you there. - fine. This sounds more like a suggestion than sentence 5.
  7. I wish happiness be a destination, I would meet you there. - after "wish" it should be a past form (not "be"). "I wish happiness were a destination" is a complete independent clause. After that, you can't put a comma and then another independent clause (unless you also add a connecting word/phrase).
  8. If happiness had been a destination, I would have met you there. - fine! This is about something that did not actually happen in the past.
  9. If happiness were a destination, I would have met you there. - fine. "I would have met you" means that this would have already happened, i.e. before the moment of speaking (unlike 5 and 6).
  10. If happiness had been a destination, I would meet you there. - OK, but "had been" is an unreal past, so it would fit better with something else about the past e.g. "I would have met you there".
  11. If happiness were a destination, I might meet you there. - fine. This is more tentative than sentence 5.
  12. If happiness were being a destination, I would have met you there. - there is no apparent reason to say "were being". It emphasises the continuousness of the action, but "be" is already a state. This structure is normally used to describe a person's behaviour which is considered atypical or temporary (e.g. "You're being very helpful today" - it implies that the person is not normally so helpful). 
  13. If happiness were being a destination, I would meet you there. - see comment 12.

I hope that helps.

Jonathan

LearnEnglish team

Hi Jonathan. Thank you very much. I was really not expecting you answer such long multiple question.

But I still have some questions.

- For first conditional: usually in grammars I've seen only the use of "would" in the second clause, but apparently the use of the other models is possible and it changes the usual understanding of improbability in this type of conditional. Is it correct?

Hi berckjr,

No problem! I'm glad you found my answer useful.

That's right, other modal verbs are possible too. For example:

  • If we had a bigger house, we could have a pet.
  • It it rains later, I might come home early.
  • If you feel tired while driving, you should stop and take a rest.

The meaning is according to the meaning of the modal verbs (could = ability; might = slight possibility; should = advice).

Normally grammar resources (including our website) highlight the use of "will" and "would" in conditional structures, but you're right to point out that other modals can be used.

Jonathan

LearnEnglish team

Submitted by nino23 on Wed, 10/01/2024 - 12:56

Permalink

Hi!
i have a question about the usage of "expected" and "had expected" in the following sentences.I couldn't make out which one is actually correct.I hope you can help me out which one is actually correct to say
"it is prettier than I expected "
"it is prettier than I had expexted" (here the verb "is" indicates that it is in the present tense. so i thought that the first one could be correct because the past perfect is used withe the past tenses.)

" it was prettier than I expected "
"it was prettier than I had expected " ( here the verb "was" indicates that it is in the past. so here i couldn't decide which one to choose. both sound correct to me but grammatically maybe the second one would be correct because of the past perfect that is is used with the past simple
i hope you can help me out which one/ones are correct and why. also why the others are incorrect.
thank you for your help already

Hi nino23,

In short, all of these are fine.

  1. It is prettier than I expected - the action expected happened before the present time.
  2. It is prettier than I had expected - the past perfect had expected normally indicates an action occurring before another past action. No other past action is mentioned in this sentence. However, a reader or listener can still easily make sense of it by 'filling in the gap' with some other logical past action (e.g. seeing the pretty thing) that is not explicitly stated.
  3. It was prettier than I expected - the expectation clearly occurred first, so the past perfect "had expected" is also fine. However, it is common for speakers to simplify the past perfect to the past simple, especially when the order of the actions is obvious enough - an expectation must logically occur before the other action, and cannot occur after it.
  4. It was prettier than I had expected - this is a conventional use of the past perfect. The expectation occurred before the speaker described the thing as pretty.

These are interesting examples! I hope that helps to make sense of them.

Jonathan

LearnEnglish team

Thanks a lot for answering my question. it is very helpful to have a place where we can ask these kind of questions and get feedback from teachers who explain everything explicitly. it was very helpful :)

Submitted by jar07 on Wed, 01/11/2023 - 14:26

Permalink

Hello,
I have two questions.
Would you recommend using 'would' instead of will in type 1 ( real if and real main clause)?
Some credible sources say you can use it. Example: If we invite him, Adam would visit us on Monday. (If we choose to invite him over, we predict that Adam will accept our invitation and come over.) Source: https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/How-to-Use-Could-Would-and-….
If it is acceptable to use "would," then doesn't it make a mixed conditional with real condition in the if clause and unreal in the main clause which is against the rule of mixed conditionals?

2) Would you recommend using 'should' with type 2 conditionals (unreal if anytime and unreal main clause any time)? Some credible sources say you can use it. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/conditionals-if
Many others say you cannot use it.

Hello jar07,

I'm not a fan of the first/second/third/zero/mixed categorisation, to be honest. It's not an accurate description of the system and imposes restrictions and rules which are not supported by the language as used. Really, this way of describing conditionals is a gross simplification which may be useful when learners first meet them but which actually leads to problems later. That said...

 

1) I would not recommend this. To me, this example is problematic because of the logical inconsistency between the two clauses (an real/likely condition and an unreal/unlikely result. Of course, non-standard forms occur in every language and English is no exception so I do not doubt that these kinds of examples crop up from time to time. However, I would say that they do not follow standard usage and are not the best models for extrapolating a general rule or pattern.

 

2) Yes, it is possible to use 'should' in either clause of conditional sentences. If the if-clause 'should' refers to probability and has a sense of 'if it so happens that...' or 'if by chance...' It is quite formal and suggests something out of the speaker's control or influence. For example, in Robert Brooke's famous poem 'The Soldier' he uses 'should' in the if-clause to give the sense of 'If by chance I... / If I happen to...'. Structurally, the sentence is a real/likely future conditional but 'should' makes the condition a little less likely:

If I should die, think only this of me:
That there’s some corner of a foreign field
That is for ever England.

In the result clause 'should' can certainly can be used in unreal conditionals. For example:

If you packed well, then you should have at least two sweaters. [to meet the requirement of good packing two sweaters is a necessity]

 

It's a complex area. You can find a fuller discussion of it here:

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/274115/should-in-conditionals

 


Peter

The LearnEnglish Team