Conversation started Aug 16, 2015 at 11:29.
Shoe
Shoe
Aug 16, 2015 11:29
Ok, I've been pretty busy recently (new school year coming up!), and haven't got a lot more to say. To answer the OP's question: Yes, some ELT sources would call the sentence a mixed conditional as it contains a combination of verb forms that do not appear in what are called the 0-3 conditionals. As to whether it is grammatical, yes it is; and I am a little surprised that you suggest in your last paragraph that the OP not emulate it. Following Lewis, we can justify the verb form in each clause based on the communicative intent of the speaker. The statement could be interpreted as follows: …
StoneyB
StoneyB
I'm willing to accept that my characterization of the n-conditionals as 'rubbish' may be "unnecessarily derogatory", and I will be more careful of that in the future.
But it is rooted in the experience I've had on this site, where many (if not most) of the questions about conditionals appear to reflect a belief that the n-conditionals-as-actually-taught are regarded as an exhaustive typology. I'm sure you realize that your own very scholarly understanding of English grammar is not shared by the vast majority of your colleagues in the field ....
Shoe
Shoe
Each year in my classes i have new students from different countries, many of whom have been taught the 0-3 conditionals, and other simplistic stuff about articles, etc. I think it is better to avoid undermining their confidence in what they have learned and move them from their current starting point to a more nuanced understanding. After all, if they think they have been taught rubbish in the past they may well believe that they could be taught rubbish by me in the future!
StoneyB
StoneyB
... particularly in the US, where the education establishment actively discourages the formal study of grammar.
Shoe
Shoe
Aug 16, 2015 11:46
Yes, I would have to admit that it is pure conjecture on my part that most teachers avoid simplistic rule-based instruction in this aspect of grammar.
StoneyB
StoneyB
lol! ... I myself come out of a background where the Beginning of Wisdom is skepticism -- in the first instance about what one "knows", and in the second about what one is being taught, so belligerent antinomianism is sorta my natural dialect. But I do have serious objections to the n-conditionals as a framework for understanding.
Shoe
Shoe
I think there is an even greater resistance to the formal study of grammar in the UK - nt that I would agree that the study of this aspect of grammar is worthy of precious instructional time. It would be nice however if most students ended their education being abe to name the word classes and knowing what a clause or phrase is.
Antinomianism is a word that I have not come across before. I'll have to work it into dinner time chat with my wife and daughter. They'll be impressed!
StoneyB
StoneyB
Well, be careful -- that one's a calculated rhetorical misuse! ...
Me, I'm fond of formal grammar - I come from a generation which was taught foreign languages with a good deal of emphasis on morphology and syntax, so for me grammar is the high road to getting my head around texts.
Shoe
Shoe
Ha. I think we've exhausted the conditional thing. Experiencing the first cool wet day in Frankfurt since March (or so it seems), I've had bit of time to work on an answer to a featured question on ELU, about themself, as in "Someone has helped themself to my milk" (interestingly, but unsurprisingly underlined as incorrect in this entry). What's your take on this. To me as a Brit, this is perfectly acceptable.What's your take on it?
StoneyB
StoneyB
Unexceptionable in a colloquial context - problematic in more formal contexts, but unlikely to appear there, so ignorable.
I think it raises a matter that's sorta critical on this site, though, where so many of the learners are looking not for English-as-she-is-spoken but English-which-will-get-me-into a US/UK university or graduate school.
Shoe
Shoe
Aug 16, 2015 12:01
I agree that one would be ill-advised to write it in formal contexts, knowing the number of readers out there lying in wait for the next opportunity to be enraged by how someone expresses themself! But, interestingly, the estimable Garner in his Modern American Usage reports that themself is used in legal contexts in Canada.
inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M
inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M
@DamkerngT. Are we talking about shoes?
OK now is n-conditional the retired IUPAC name for normal-conditional?
@StoneyB Misfire . . .
I'm in.
StoneyB
StoneyB
The language is indeed shifting. ... But there's a lot of phoniness around the whole singular-they thing. It is quite true that they/them/their/themself/&c has a distinguished history with indefinite referents; but it is not at all true that this justifies extension to definite referents.
inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M
inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M
I might warn you though; I'm not in in the conversation, just in. Ping me if it's necessary.
StoneyB
StoneyB
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M n-conditional is my idiolectic term for 1st- / 2nd- / 3rd- / nth conditionals.
Shoe
Shoe
I agree with your comment about what learners want. That's why I'm always a bit wary about, for example, answering questions about backshift. It may well be that learners need to prove in exams that they know how to do this, so pointing out actual language in use frequently does not backshift may well be unhelpful.
inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M
inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M
Aug 16, 2015 12:06
Haa, but since they're being taught in Iran, I'm pretty sure something's wrong with them or that system of teaching.
StoneyB
StoneyB
Ho, ho, 'backshift' is a well-gnawed bone around here - ask Araucaria some time about 'backshift' and you will find that my rhetorical exaggerations pale! ... I've started playing around with a distinction between 'backshift' (for temporal relocation) and 'sideshift' (for modal relocation). Someday that will turn into a Canonical Post on modal verbs -- and then there will be some sort of foundation for a CP on conditionals.
Shoe
Shoe
There's a recent Language Log on the use of oneself as a definite referent, as in The nurse who has a low opinion of oneself, which Mark Lieberman call this 'jarring'.
StoneyB
StoneyB
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Not everything that is taught is myth; just most of it.
Yes; we're trying to take Great Mother English somewhere she doesn't want to go, so she's just sitting there laughing at us while we try to evolve through Present-day English into Early New English.
Shoe
Shoe
Ok, time to step out again (Mahlzeit!). I'll check back later to catch up on the latest contributions.
 
Conversation ended Aug 16, 2015 at 12:14.