0

Unreal conditional sentences with Past Perfect, Were and Should may suffer inversion to show more formality. "Past Perfect" and "Were" exist in the original regular Unreal Conditional but how does "Should" work? Where does it come from? From another S.Past verb different from "were"?

Is it correct, for ex? "If he knew it, he would tell me".
INVERSION.....Should he know it, he would tell me.

StoneyB on hiatus
  • 175,127
  • 14
  • 260
  • 461
lalynacar.
  • 278
  • 2
  • 8
  • I don't quite understand what you want me to do. I think my doubt is clearly expressed. I know how inversion works with past perfect and were, my doubt is with the modal should. Ex. Had I known my question wasn't clear enough... – lalynacar. Apr 24 '16 at 17:36
  • My doubt is related to the original conditional sentences that may suffer inversion into " should "without having should in the original conditional. Can both: if + simple present or if + simple past (except "were") be inverted using "should"?Ex. If he comes tomorrow, we will of course welcome him ---(should he come tomorrow...)- Stoney B/ Lambie – lalynacar. Apr 25 '16 at 06:13
  • If he knew it, he would tell me: right. Should he know it, he MIGHT tell me. – Lambie May 15 '16 at 18:43

2 Answers2

1

Should you like the movie, we can go to another one.

Should here means: in the event you like the movie. It is semantically equal to: if you like the movie. It is just a bit more formal.

Should they come by, we'll tell them the story.

Should the trade partners agree to the treaty, their respective legislatures will sign it. It is used in written form most often than in speech.

Lambie
  • 44,522
  • 4
  • 33
  • 88
  • Who accepted these answers to my question? I didn't ask for an interpretation of a conditional sentence containing should. I asked if a first or, second conditional clause(containing any verb but "were") could be inverted starting with Should... I already know what you have written. – lalynacar. May 15 '16 at 18:33
  • @lalynacar I do not understand your comment under my answer. – Lambie May 15 '16 at 18:44
  • Lambie; All your examples start with "should". You start by explaining the meaning "should" has. (this isn't my doubt) and, that it expresses certain formality (that isn't my doubt ,either). Your sentence 1) should you not like the movie, we can....If someone asked you to use inversion with: If you don't like the movie, we can... Can you produce your sentence 1)?(which contains a sense mistake I've corrected). All your examples correspond to conditional 1. What about Conditional II? (Using your 2nd sentence) If they came by, we'd tell them...(is it inverted into... ? Should they come by – lalynacar. May 15 '16 at 20:14
  • Lambie; yours wasn't the only accepted answer I didn't agree with. I don't mean they are wrong, the problem is that I didn't receive the information I wanted. Read my question once again to know if you understand it better with my comment. – lalynacar. May 15 '16 at 20:20
  • Lambie: I don't understand the example I've just read in a comment of yours. Why have you changed" would" into "might". ? As far as I know, the result clause doesn't suffer a change. In any case, that's near the type of answer I was expecting. – lalynacar. May 15 '16 at 20:31
  • /Should he know it, he would tell me/ is your example and it is not grammatical in English. /If he knew it, he would tell me/ is grammatical. /Should he know it [meaning: if there is a chance he knows it], he might tell me/ or /he will tell me/ or /he is going to tell me/. The two have very similar meanings, but are constructed differently. The inverted /should/ (to mean if there is a chance of something) is followed /might/, /will/ or /is going to/ and NOT WOULD, that is a mistake. – Lambie May 16 '16 at 16:39
1

Subject-auxiliary inversion to express a conditional works exactly the same way as subject-auxiliary inversion to express a question: you simply move the auxiliary in front of the subject and drop the if:

If he should come tomorrow, we will of course welcome him.
↓
Should he come tomorrow, we will of course welcome him.

If he were coming he would surely inform us.
↓
Were he coming he would surely inform us.

If I had known you were coming I would have rearranged my schedule.
↓
Had I known you were coming I would have rearranged my schedule.

In Present-day English, however, this sort of conditional construction is restricted to a handful of past-form auxiliaries—were (uninflected for person or number), had and should—and even these constructions have a very formal, old-fashioned ring today.

Note that these inverted constructions do not necessarily express "unreality":

  • Should and were conditionals may express unreality but more often express non-reaiity: a hypothetical condition or an 'open' condition, a contingency which has not yet been realized but may be in the future.

    • Should conditionals are usually open, and the verb heading the following consequence clause will usually have future reference: either a will future, as in the example above or a modal in either non-past or past form understood in a non-past sense:

    Should he come tomorrow we can let him use John's office.
    Should he come tomorrow we could let him use John's office.

    Would in the consequence clause is possible, but unlikely.

    • The verb heading a consequence clause introduced by were conditionals may express counterfactuality but more often express an open condition regarded as possible but unlikely; in either case a past form is required in the consequence clause:

    Were he to come tomorrow we would let him use John's office.

  • Had conditionals, however, usually do express counterfactuality. The perfect construction in the condition clause indicates a past contingency, and the "conditionality" of the construction implies that the contingency was not in fact realized, since if it were realized there would be no "if" involved.

StoneyB on hiatus
  • 175,127
  • 14
  • 260
  • 461