0

Consider:

If I met John, I would call my mom.

I know this sentence is a second conditional example, which relates to a hypothetical situation.

But I don't know whether I can also understand it in such a way if the covert context is:

I may have met him, but I am not quite sure about that. My memory can't last that long. The only thing I am sure about is that whenever I meet him, I will call my mom immediately. Thus, if one day I find out I indeed met John before, I will be sure that I called my mom immediately on that occasion.

Kinzle B
  • 7,105
  • 27
  • 87
  • 143
  • I think you mean a hypothetical situation. Do you mean you would call your mom now if you found out about meeting John, or do you mean you would have called her last summer, after meeting John? – oerkelens Mar 20 '14 at 14:38
  • The case is, I am not sure whether I met him sometime last summer, and also I am not sure whether I called my mom. – Kinzle B Mar 20 '14 at 14:40
  • This is possible. If I met John last summer, I will call my mom. It means If I find out I indeed met him, my mom will be the first to know this. But this is not the case in my question. – Kinzle B Mar 20 '14 at 14:45
  • I am not quite clear about what you are asking here. Please clarify your query. – Adil Ali Mar 20 '14 at 15:02
  • My question is that I don't know whether I could also understand it in this way. Is it possible to be explained as above given the context I described? – Kinzle B Mar 20 '14 at 15:05
  • Actually, this is starting to sound like my textbook on Mathematical proofs. :D – Adil Ali Mar 20 '14 at 15:07
  • Sort of, what I am saying here is just a theoretical possiblity. – Kinzle B Mar 20 '14 at 15:08

4 Answers4

2

This is exactly why the notion of '1st, 2nd, 3rd conditional' is so useless for anything except getting an initial familiarity with the forms. This sentence, as you conjecture, bears two entirely different meanings in different contexts:

  • It may be a non-past, unreal conditional:

    I don't follow football, but in the unlikely event that I ever met John Elway I would call my mother immediately: she's a huge fan of his.

  • It may be a past, real conditional:

    That summer, Mom didn't mind who I played with as long as she knew where I was; so whenever I met John I would always call my mother.

Your scenario—“I am not sure whether I met him sometime last summer. But if I did meet him at that time, I would call my mom and tell her about him.” requires a different construction in the consequence clause, and would probably employ a construction with do in the condition clause:

I don’t remember if I met John last summer; but if I did meet him, I would have called my mother.

The n-conditional model won’t help you with that: it waves the situation off as a ’mixed conditional’.

Community
  • 1
StoneyB on hiatus
  • 175,127
  • 14
  • 260
  • 461
  • Shouldn't it be ... whom I played with as long as...? – Maulik V Mar 21 '14 at 06:07
  • who is also acceptable, just a little informal. @Maulik V – Kinzle B Mar 21 '14 at 11:49
  • Looking back, I tend to think the last example should be like this: I don’t remember if I met John last summer; but if I did meet him, I will have called my mother. She's a huge fan of his. What do you think? @StoneyB – Kinzle B Jun 30 '14 at 13:04
  • @ZhanlongZheng That is possible but very unlikely. Epistemic will indicates certainty, and doesn't fit well with the uncertainty in your protasis. – StoneyB on hiatus Jun 30 '14 at 13:36
  • http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/13265/does-will-have-p-p-include-futurity-only-when-added-time-adjunct/13282#13282 Wouldn't [ii] be same as mine? @StoneyB – Kinzle B Jun 30 '14 at 13:46
  • @ZhanlongZheng But both of those refer to present states, not past events; and in the "army" example, the if clause is 'echoic', accepting someone else's assurance that he stayed in the army. In your example, you have indicated uncertainty; either would or must would be natural, but you would use will only if you were focusing on somehow checking whether in fact you did call your mother. – StoneyB on hiatus Jun 30 '14 at 15:02
  • Is it the same to say "I don’t remember if I met John last summer; but if I had met him, I would have called my mother.", meaning exactly the same as "..., but if I did meet him, I would have called my mother."? @StoneyB – Kinzle B Oct 02 '14 at 02:10
  • @KinzleB No: If I did meet* him* signifies an open question: you don't remember whether the meeting took place or not. If I had met* him* signifies a closed counterfactual: you are certain the meeting did not take place. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 02 '14 at 10:24
  • Is it possible to say "I don’t know if John is in Beijing; but if he is there, he would/will ask Mary to take care of the children." Do I need to open a new question? @StoneyB – Kinzle B Oct 02 '14 at 11:24
  • @KinzleB It's possible, but ordinarily you'd say he would have asked, because ordinarily he would have made that arrangement before going to Beijing. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 02 '14 at 11:27
  • I thought so, what about this: "I don’t know if John is in Beijing; but if he is there, he would/will visit the Great Wall." ^_^ @StoneyB Does "would" here hint at uncertainty of his visit? – Kinzle B Oct 02 '14 at 11:33
  • @KinzleB I'd be uncomfortable with would there, though you might hear it in conversation. Would isn't quite symmetrical with the other modals: you could use could or might or should there, but would implies nonfactuality. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 02 '14 at 11:40
  • Terrific! BTW, you said "I'd be uncomfortable with.." because you mean under no circumstances you would be comfortable with.., right? And you said "you could use..". Is the could the same as in "we could write a letter to the director.", used to suggest something? – Kinzle B Oct 02 '14 at 12:02
  • 1
    @KinzleB The would means more I'd would be uncomfortable writing it - it would feel wrong. The could is a mix of permission and ability - it would be OK to do that - but pastform because that's hypothetical: you haven't indicated any intention of using could or might or should. ... But ALL these answers are after the fact: I didn't consider them in writing the comment. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 02 '14 at 21:34
  • Wow, this is new to me; each time I think I have figured it out, it only turns out I'm still in the dark. Would it be OK to say "you can/may use could or might or should..."? Any nuances suggested? :) – Kinzle B Oct 03 '14 at 01:20
  • @KinzleB Sure you can. Or may. I can, too; or at least I could, but I didn't. It's all very fuzzy. There are no bright lines. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 03 '14 at 01:31
1

I believe you are referring to past tense with your question.

"If I met John, I would call my mom," is a possible situation in the future or hypothetical.

"If I had met John, I would have called my mom," is what you would say if you are talking about meeting John last Summer.

iolympian
  • 448
  • 2
  • 4
  • I am talking about past. As I have said, I already knew this usage of hypothetical situation. I just thought about another possibility, given my context. – Kinzle B Mar 20 '14 at 15:11
  • It could also be, "If I met John, I would have called my mom." – Adil Ali Mar 20 '14 at 15:11
  • Nope, in your case, it should be "if I had met John". – Kinzle B Mar 20 '14 at 15:12
  • "If I met John, I would call my mom," is not proper for past tense. The reason is the use of "would call". That is a "going to" phrase. To make it past tense you need you to use "would have called". So, the context for this is not interchangeable between past and hypothetical statements without changing the tense of the sentence. – iolympian Mar 20 '14 at 15:13
  • I think you are not asking my question here. I have known the way you explained. @iolympian – Kinzle B Mar 20 '14 at 15:14
  • I may be misunderstanding your question, but

    "I don't know whether I could also understand it in this way: The context is, I am not sure whether I met him sometime last summer. But if I did meet him at that time, I would call my mom and tell her about him."

    It sounds like you are asking whether you could interpret that sentence as being that you met him last summer.

    To answer that, you cannot interpret the sentence that way.

     – iolympian Mar 20 '14 at 15:15
  • I might have met him, but I am not very sure about that. My memory can't last that long. The only thing I am sure about is that whenever I meet him, I will call my mom. This is the context. – Kinzle B Mar 20 '14 at 15:21
  • But, iolympian is right. Your context makes it a third conditional case. – Adil Ali Mar 20 '14 at 15:24
  • Then, it is not about hypothetical situation. If so, why is "would have called" used? I think that it can be only used in the main clause to indicate the hypothetical consequence. But in my case, It was possible that I called my mom. I just don't quite remember now. @snailplane – Kinzle B Mar 20 '14 at 15:40
  • I think I'm starting to understand. The issue is that the sentence does not convey "past tense met John" future tense "call mom".

    "If I found out I had met John, I would call my mom."
    "If I remember whether I met John, I would call my mom."
    "If I had met John, I may have called my mom."

    But,

    "If I met John, I would call my mom," cannot be read as-is as anything other than a future hypothetical. Doing so would be forcing the language and anyone who is a native English speaker would misunderstand what you are meaning, thinking you mean future.

     – iolympian Mar 20 '14 at 15:49
  • 1
    @Zhanlong: I think you are mistakenly assuming English tenses are far more "precise" than is really the case. There are many different ways of interpreting your example sentence, and even messing about with perfect aspects (had met, would have called) won't disambiguate much. The context would normally make it clear what you mean, but a contrived example sentence standing in isolation is a completely different ball game. – FumbleFingers Mar 20 '14 at 16:45
  • Good point! That's why I added the context in the last paragraph. @FumbleFingers YES, I am trying to make simple things more complicated for the sake of discussion. – Kinzle B Mar 21 '14 at 10:22
1

Let's see:

  • You may, or may not, have met John last summer.
  • After meeting John, the thing you would surely do is call your mother.

Then you can say:

If I met John last summer, I would have called my mother.

Now, to find out whether you met John, you can ask your mother if you called her. :)

Your original sentence, however, cannot be interpreted that way.

The only possibility would be to read it as

If I met John last summer (and I somehow remembered that now), I would call my mother (now, immediately - or in the very near future, right after remembering whether I met him).

That is, however, such a far-fetched interpretation, that is is highly unlikely that anyone would ever read the sentence like that.

oerkelens
  • 25,014
  • 1
  • 59
  • 79
  • If i say it in your way, then it is not about a hypothetical situation. If so, why is "would have called" used? I think that it can be only used in the main clause to indicate the hypothetical consequence. But in my case, It was possible that I called my mom. I just don't quite remember now. @oerkelens – Kinzle B Mar 20 '14 at 15:48
  • I wanted to stay as close as possible to your original :) To fully explain the situation without misunderstandings, one would say something like "If I did actually meet John last summer, I'm sure I would have called my mom. Maybe I should check with her." – oerkelens Mar 20 '14 at 15:52
  • Then, what is the usage of "would have" here? I have never seen it being used like that. – Kinzle B Mar 20 '14 at 15:54
  • It simply indicates that it might or might not have happened. If I say "I called my mom", it is a fact. I do not know if I called her or not. If I say "I would call her", I is not referring to anything in the past. (It could, in a sentence like "When I was a kid, every time I saw John, I would call my mom.") – oerkelens Mar 20 '14 at 16:08
  • This is never examined in any grammar book i have read. I don't think "would have" here is interchangeable with "might have". Right? I know exactly how each of what you have listed above stands for different situation. But this "would have" comes out of nowhere. I wonder how "would have" match my original context. Why choose it, although obviously other alternatives do not fit. Plz help me! @oerkelens – Kinzle B Mar 20 '14 at 16:23
  • @ZhanlongZheng Would have called is not a perfect construction (modal verbs have no participles, so they cannot be cast in the perfect), but the construction used to 'backshift' into the past a past-tense form employed with present reference. For instance: present-tense "I should like a cookie (today)" would be backshifted as "I should have liked a cookie (yesterday)". – StoneyB on hiatus Mar 20 '14 at 19:07
  • I knew that is not a perfect construction. I just wonder why "Would have called" can collocate with an if-clause which does not refer to a hypothetical scenario. And is it a backshifted version of "If I meet John, I will call my mother." @StoneyB – Kinzle B Mar 21 '14 at 04:41
  • @ZhanlongZheng Because it's still hypothetical (just not counterfactual); and because would, like the other modals, is as often as not a present indicative form, no longer distinctly marked for either pastness or hypotheticality. It's a past marker, to eliminate the ambiguity of *would. – StoneyB on hiatus Mar 21 '14 at 12:58
-1

If I met John, I would call my mom.

You say you are not sure whether you met him in the summer. So here are the possibilities: A)You met John. So you called your mom. B)You did not meet John. So you didn't call your mom either.

But then, you did not mention anything about when you would call your mom. So if get to know, that did meet him, I would call my mom up then.

But with your interpretation there are three 'catches' : 1) The time when you would call your mom isn't mentioned, so your assumption is wrong. You may or may not call her up immediately. 2) There is no way to be sure that you would have immediately called up your mom, right after you met John (from 1) 3)A reference to the past requires the sentence to be in the form : If I had [past participle(x)], then I would have [past participle(y)]. So your sentence actually refers to the future.

From these catches, we can conclude that your interpretation is wrong

Note : See English Conditional Sentences

Adil Ali
  • 710
  • 6
  • 13