The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

if you (had) arrived tomorrow Options
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Sunday, May 14, 2017 2:52:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 946
Neurons: 285,402
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
Quote:
If you had arrived tomorrow, the position would have been filled.

Why that would be more preferable than this:

Quote:
If you arrived tomorrow, the job would be filled.




აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
tunaafi
Posted: Sunday, May 14, 2017 3:53:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,245
Neurons: 52,649
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
Neither is betterthan the other. Both are possible; though they would be said in different contexts.
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Sunday, May 14, 2017 5:55:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 946
Neurons: 285,402
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
tunaafi wrote:
Neither is betterthan the other. Both are possible; though they would be said in different contexts.

What I am interested in is a context in which the first would be used and another in which the second would fit.

აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Sunday, May 14, 2017 8:41:23 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 26,710
Neurons: 144,725
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Good question . . .Think

What I can see is a difference in whether the person has already arrived or not. One situation can use two sentences - it has two major uncertainties in it.

The one with 'if you had arrived tomorrow' only works if the person has already arrived - it is an unreal, impossible condition.

"I'm glad you made it today - if you'd arrived tomorrow, the position would have been filled."
It is an unreal definite future situation - based on an unreal future condition.

"You have a choice, today or tomorrow, but if you arrived tomorrow, the position would be filled."
"You have a choice, today or tomorrow, but if you arrive tomorrow, the position will be filled."

It is a probable real future situation - based on a possible future condition. The second one is much more likely to be used.

"I'm coming tomorrow." - "If you arrive tomorrow, the position will be filled."
It is a real definite future situation - based on a probable future condition.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Monday, May 15, 2017 12:04:12 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 946
Neurons: 285,402
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
What I can see is a difference in whether the person has already arrived or not. One situation can use two sentences - it has two major uncertainties in it.

Thanks for clarifying. But I still have a major 'uncertainty'. You did not say exactly if I can use "if you arrived" in the contrafactual case.

Drag0nspeaker wrote:
"I'm glad you made it today - if you'd arrived tomorrow, the position would have been filled."
It is an unreal definite future situation - based on an unreal future condition.

Can I say "if you arrived tomorrow, the position would be filled." in this situation?

I am asking because I have read that this would be infelicitous:

Subjunctive Conditionals: A Linguistic Analysis, by Michela Ippolito


And at the same time there's an example of this in literature:

Deadly Illusions: Jean Harlow and the Murder of Paul Bern, by Samuel Marx, Joyce Vanderveen

Quote:
If you'd arrived yesterday, I'd have given you an assignment and forgotten about you. If you arrived tomorrow, the job would be filled.





აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
tunaafi
Posted: Monday, May 15, 2017 3:12:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,245
Neurons: 52,649
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
I agree with what Drag0 wrote with one small mofification.
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Good question . . .Think


The one with 'if you had arrived tomorrow' only works if the person has already arrived - it is an unreal, impossible condition.


It's just about possible if the person has not actually arrived yet, but it is clear that their arrival is going to take place before 'tomorrow'.

A: My flight is due to land at midday today, so I should easily be able to get to the interview by four.
B. That's a relief.If you'd arrived tomorrow, the position would have been filled.
tunaafi
Posted: Monday, May 15, 2017 3:17:58 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,245
Neurons: 52,649
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
You did not say exactly if I can use "if you arrived" in the contrafactual case.
[/quote]We cannot.
tunaafi
Posted: Monday, May 15, 2017 3:21:58 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,245
Neurons: 52,649
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
I missed one other point. Sorry.
Drag0nspeaker wrote:

"You have a choice, today or tomorrow, but if you arrived tomorrow, the position would be filled."
"You have a choice, today or tomorrow, but if you arrive tomorrow, the position will be filled."

It is a probable real future situation - based on a possible future condition. The second one is much more likely to be used.

The situations in these two sentences are not presented as equally probable. In the first, the past-tense forms in the conditional distance the situation in likelihood. The possibility of the person arriving tomorrow is seen as less likely than in the second sentence.
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Monday, May 15, 2017 5:20:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 946
Neurons: 285,402
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
tunaafi wrote:
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
You did not say exactly if I can use "if you arrived" in the contrafactual case.
We cannot.

We cannot say or we cannot use?

If you visit our beloved TFD at this page:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Conditional-Sentences.htm

you'll find:

Quote:
We use the second conditional to speak about a hypothetical situation or outcome resulting from the condition. Unlike the first conditional, we use the second conditional to talk about things that cannot or are unlikely to happen.

Quote:
Third conditionals are used to establish a hypothetical situation in the past, followed by a hypothetical outcome that did not really happen—typically, the outcome is the opposite of what actually happened.

It looks like your advice contradicts with both definitions of the second and the third conditionals. And there's that quote from "Deadly Illusions" that you chose not to comment.

აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:10:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 26,710
Neurons: 144,725
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
TFD wrote:
We use the second conditional to speak about a hypothetical situation or outcome resulting from the condition. Unlike the first conditional, we use the second conditional to talk about things that cannot or are unlikely to happen.

Quote:
Third conditionals are used to establish a hypothetical situation in the past, followed by a hypothetical outcome that did not really happen—typically, the outcome is the opposite of what actually happened.

It looks like your advice contradicts with both definitions of the second and the third conditionals. And there's that quote from "Deadly Illusions" that you chose not to comment.

The attempt to simplify conditionals by saying that there are only three possible (sorry, four - there is a 'zero' too) is an over-simplification and is misleading.

As you can see from tunaafi's comment on my example, even though the two sentences can be described similarly, they have a difference in 'probability':
"You have a choice, today or tomorrow, but if you arrived tomorrow, the position would be filled."
"You have a choice, today or tomorrow, but if you arrive tomorrow, the position will be filled."

It is a probable real future situation - based on a possible future condition.
As tunaafi says, the speaker of the first sentence is assuming that it is relatively unlikely that the person will arrive tomorrow.
The speaker of the second one feels it is more likely that he will arrive tomorrow.

There are dozens of possible combinations of conditionals and resulting situations.

**********
The quote from 'Deadly Illusions' is saying
1. that the person did not arrive yesterday. If he had arrived yesterday . . .
2. He has not arrived yet today - the lack of 'had' in the conditional says that it is still real (possible) for him to arrive tomorrow.
3. The 'arrived' instead of 'arrive' says that the speaker feels it is unlikely that he will arrive tomorrow. I guess that he feels the person will do everything needed to arrive later today.

Future conditions are always contrafactual. They haven't happened YET. They are not a fact.
However, they can be
virtually impossible
very unlikely
possible
very likely
virtually definite

"If you arrived tomorrow" gives the idea that it's possible, but you feel the person will probably arrange to arrive earlier. As I said before - this is a relatively uncommon usage.
"If you arrive tomorrow" gives the idea that it's possible and you feel the person intends to arrive tomorrow. It's used in warnings

If (in the book) the person has actually already arrived today, then the use of that conditional is wrong.
It should read "If you had arrived tomorrow".



Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
tunaafi
Posted: Monday, May 15, 2017 7:40:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,245
Neurons: 52,649
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Future conditions are always contrafactual. They haven't happened YET.


Given that I agree with nearly everything you have said in this thread, and that I like the clarity of your explanations, I must apologise in advance for the apparent nitpicking of what follows.

Terms such as contrafactual/counterfactual/irrealis are fine with reference to present- or past-time situations, because we can see what is or was verifiable. However, we cannot verify future situations until they are mo longer future. Even such patently absurd statements as "Drag0 will shoot Piscean five minutes after this post has appeared in the forum" are not contrafactual at the moment of utterance, while "Drag0 is strangling Piscean at this very moment" or "Drag0 strangled/shot Piscean five minutes before this post appeared" are verifiably contrafactual.

I am banging on about this because I feel strongly that, in talking about conditionals, counterfactual (my preferred term) should be used only of situations that are verifiably not in accordance with the facts.

The likelihood of God's appearance as described in the following example is infinitesimal. However, it is not counterfactual until the non-appearance has been attested five (or five hundred) seconds after midday tomorrow:

If God appeared in the form of a three-legged purple elephant in the middle of Trafalgar Square at midday tomorrow, the pigeons in the square would turn into whales.
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Monday, May 15, 2017 8:21:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 946
Neurons: 285,402
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
Drag0nspeaker wrote:

If (in the book) the person has actually already arrived today, then the use of that conditional is wrong.
It should read "If you had arrived tomorrow".

Finally!

But I have to remind you that in your first message in this thread you wrote:

Quote:
What I can see is a difference in whether the person has already arrived or not. One situation can use two sentences - it has two major uncertainties in it.

Now there's left only one sentence for any of two situations. :) I hope you understand why I was persisting.

A million thanks!

აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 12:11:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 26,710
Neurons: 144,725
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
tunaafi wrote:
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Future conditions are always contrafactual. They haven't happened YET.

counterfactual (my preferred term) should be used only of situations that are verifiably not in accordance with the facts.

Ah - my apologies.
The meaning I had for 'contrafactual' was 'situations that are not verifiably in accordance with the facts'.

That reversal of two words changes things.

To me, something which verifiably happened in the past is fact.
Something which is happening right now is fact.
Anything else - something which didn't happen, something which may have happened (but is not known to have happened),something which might happen, something which definitely will not happen - is not fact, it is either unreal or conjecture.

So I will not strangle either you or Piscean. It was a misunderstanding.

**********
Hello Харбин.

I don't understand . . . maybe you are assuming that I know that the person has already arrived. I don't know that - it is not in any of the data you have given.

It is as I said at (for me) 0141 yesterday (about 28 hours ago). The data you gave allows for three situations:

One situation - you arrived today - has only one of these sentences which can be used:
"I'm glad you made it today - if you'd arrived tomorrow, the position would have been filled."

Another situation - you definitely didn't arrive today, it will probably be tomorrow - has only one of these sentences which can be used:
"I'm coming tomorrow." - "If you arrive tomorrow, the position will be filled."

The third situation with two uncertainties in it - 1. maybe you will arrive later today, but maybe tomorrow and 2. maybe the job will be filled tomorrow - has two possible sentences (depending on the probability of uncertainty #1).
"You have a choice, today or tomorrow, but if you arrived tomorrow, the position would be filled."
"You have a choice, today or tomorrow, but if you arrive tomorrow, the position will be filled."


One of the sentences "If you arrive tomorrow, the position will be filled" can be used whether it is the person speaking or the person arriving who has the feeling of certainty that the arrival will be tomorrow.
Therefore it comes under situations #2 and #3.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Audiendus
Posted: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 12:17:03 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 4,244
Neurons: 730,513
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
tunaafi wrote:
Terms such as contrafactual/counterfactual/irrealis are fine with reference to present- or past-time situations, because we can see what is or was verifiable. However, we cannot verify future situations until they are no longer future.

But if the person has already arrived today, it is absolutely (logically) impossible that they will (instead) arrive tomorrow. So in this case the future situation can be verified. The person's arrival today and their non-arrival tomorrow form an inseparable combination which is already certain.

In this unusual instance, therefore, I think we can talk of a "counterfactual" etc and use the third conditional:

"If you had arrived tomorrow, the position would have been filled."
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 2:54:10 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 946
Neurons: 285,402
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
The third situation with two uncertainties in it - 1. maybe you will arrive later today, but maybe tomorrow and 2. maybe the job will be filled tomorrow - has two possible sentences (depending on the probability of uncertainty #1).
"You have a choice, today or tomorrow, but if you arrived tomorrow, the position would be filled."
"You have a choice, today or tomorrow, but if you arrive tomorrow, the position will be filled."


Now I understand it.

I was not interested in anything but the two sentences I had presented in my first post. So I thought you meant there was a situation when both of them would be correct. :)

Now that I see what you meant I still must say that yours was a hazy statement.

I do not have any problems with the first conditional whatsoever - the last that I had was resolved in the first thread I initiated on this forum:

http://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postst151625_If-you-will.aspx

I still do not understand how you chose between 'unreal' and 'possible' with the second conditional i.e.

If you arrived tomorrow - possible
If you were smarter - unreal

But I am a bit exhausted after this discussion so I will refrain from asking that.

აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
tunaafi
Posted: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 7:57:26 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,245
Neurons: 52,649
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:


I still do not understand how you chose between 'unreal' and 'possible' with the second conditional i.e.

If you arrived tomorrow - possible
If you were smarter - unreal


In the first sentence, 'tomorrow' is in the future. There is a possibility, however remote, that 'you' will arrive.

We say the second only if we know that he is not rich. This is about present time.
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:38:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 946
Neurons: 285,402
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
tunaafi wrote:
Quote:
I still do not understand how you chose between 'unreal' and 'possible' with the second conditional i.e.

If you arrived tomorrow - possible
If you were smarter - unreal


In the first sentence, 'tomorrow' is in the future. There is a possibility, however remote, that 'you' will arrive.

We say the second only if we know that he is not rich. This is about present time.


Ok! Let us say "If you arrived today". Is it "possible" or "unreal"?

აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
tunaafi
Posted: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:39:46 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,245
Neurons: 52,649
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
As Drag0 noted:
Quote:
The attempt to simplify conditionals by saying that there are only three possible (sorry, four - there is a 'zero' too) is an over-simplification and is misleading.[...]

There are dozens of possible combinations of conditionals and resulting situations.


Here are some examples, with a slightly different sentence. Emma is talking to Luke about a job interview in London that he travelled/will travel to. Emma is speaking now (this morning).

1. The interview is tomorrow afternoon. Luke is in Winchester, a one-hour train journey from London.

Emma:
a. If you arrive tomorrow morning, you will be able to attend the interview. Emma presents Luke's future-time arrival as a real possibility.
b. If you arrived tomorrow, morning, you would be able to attend the interview. Emma presents Luke's future arrival as a less real possibility.
c. If you arrived now, you would be a day early for the interview. Emma presents Luke's present-time arrival as a counterfactual situation.She knows it is not happening.

2. The interview is this afternoon. Luke is in Winchester, a one-hour train journey from London. He is going to catch a train that will get him to London in time for the interview.

Emma: If you had arrived tomorrow, you would have missed the interview. Emma presents Luke's arrival tomorrow as counterfactual. She knows it will not happen.

3. The interview is this afternoon. Luke has already arrived in London.

Emma: If you had arrived tomorrow, you would have missed the interview. Emma presents Luke's arrival tomorrow as a counterfactual possibility. She knows it will not happen.

4. The interview was earlier this morning. Luke has only just arrived. He has missed the interview.

Emma: If you had arrived earlier, you would not have missed the interview. Emma presents Luke's past time arrival as counterfactual. It did not happen.
tunaafi
Posted: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:43:33 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,245
Neurons: 52,649
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
Ok! Let us say "If you arrived today". Is it "possible" or "unreal"?


It is presented as a possibility than is less real than the one presented in "If you arrive today".
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 9:08:46 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 946
Neurons: 285,402
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
tunaafi wrote:
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
Ok! Let us say "If you arrived today". Is it "possible" or "unreal"?

It is presented as a possibility than is less real than the one presented in "If you arrive today".

The problem is that I do not understand how you see that "it is presented as a possibility" while this is not:

Quote:
If I were you today

Both are in the Present Simple!

აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
tunaafi
Posted: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:04:42 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,245
Neurons: 52,649
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
tunaafi wrote:
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
Ok! Let us say "If you arrived today". Is it "possible" or "unreal"?

It is presented as a possibility than is less real than the one presented in "If you arrive today".

The problem is that I do not understand how you see that "it is presented as a possibility" while this is not:

Quote:
If I were you today

Both are in the Present Simple!


Context is everything.

I am not you, therefore my being you is not a possibility.

Your arrrival today is a possibility until today ends.

Tenses in English are not tied to time. Present and past tenses can be used for past, present, general,and hypothetical situations:

1 September 1939: German troops enter Poland.
I met Mary last year.

I name this ship 'Arcadia'.
I wish my parents were here.

Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit.
Excuse me. I wonderedif you were free now.

Simon flies to Paris tomorrow.
I would be very surprised if Lucy came tomorrrow.



Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:24:45 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 946
Neurons: 285,402
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
tunaafi wrote:
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
tunaafi wrote:
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
Ok! Let us say "If you arrived today". Is it "possible" or "unreal"?

It is presented as a possibility than is less real than the one presented in "If you arrive today".

The problem is that I do not understand how you see that "it is presented as a possibility" while this is not:

Quote:
If I were you today

Both are in the Present Simple!

I should have written 'Past Simple'. When I noticed the error it was too late - the Edit button was not there. :)

tunaafi wrote:
Context is everything.

I am not you, therefore my being you is not a possibility.

Sounds plausible. Thank you!

აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.