One aspect of English grammar that I don’t recall having discussed fully in this Forum yet is the conditional sentence, which conveys the idea that the action in the main clause can take place only if the condition in the subordinate clause—the “if”-clause—is fulfilled.
The simplest form of the conditional sentence has this structure: the “if” clause states the condition in the present simple tense, is followed by a comma, then followed by the result clause in the form “will + base form of the verb,” as in this example: “
If you meet your sales quota, we
will give you a fat bonus.”
There are actually four types of conditional sentences, each type indicating the degree of certainty or likelihood that the stated condition will be fulfilled. They are the so-called
first conditional or real possibility, the
second conditional or unreal possibility, the
third conditional or no possibility, and the
zero conditional or certainty.
The first conditional talks about a high degree of possibility that a particular condition or situation will happen in the future as a result of a possible future condition. This is the case with the first conditional sentence given earlier: “
If you meet your sales quota,
we will give you a fat bonus.” As with all types of conditional sentences, of course, the result clause can also be stated ahead of the cause clause, as in this example: “
We will give you a fat bonus
if you meet your sales quota.”
The second conditional talks about a possible but very unlikely result that the stated future condition will be fulfilled; in short, the stated outcome is an unreal possibility. This type of conditional has the following sentence structure: the “if” clause states the future condition in the simple past tense, is followed by a comma, then followed by the future result clause in the form “would + base form of the verb,” as in this example: “
If I finished law school,
I would be a lawyer.” (“
I would be a lawyer
if I finished law school.”) The speaker here is talking of an unreal possibility because he didn’t finish school and didn’t become a lawyer.
The third conditional talks about a condition in the past that didn’t happen, thus making it impossible for a wished-for result to have happened. This type of sentence has the following structure: the “if” clause states the impossible past condition using the past perfect tense “had + past participle of the verb,” is followed by a comma, then followed by the impossible past result in the form “would have + past participle of the verb,” as in this example: “
If I had saved enough money,
I would have bought that house.” (“
I would have bought that house
if I had saved enough money.”) The speaker here is talking of an impossible situation because he had not saved enough money and has not bought that house.
Third conditionals could sometimes also use the modal forms “should have,” “could have,” and “might have,” as in these modal variants of the example above: “
If I had saved enough money, I
should have bought that house.” “
If I had saved enough money, I
could have bought that house.” “
If I had saved enough money, I
might have bought that house.” In all three cases, of course, none of the wished-for situations in the past had taken place.
Finally,
the zero conditional or certainty talks about a condition whose result is always true and always the same, like a scientific fact. It has the following sentence structure: the “if” clause states the condition in the simple present tense, is followed by a comma, then followed by the result clause also in the simple present tense, as in this example: “
If people don’t drink water, they
get dehydrated.” (“
People get dehydrated if they don’t drink water.”) (2010)
This essay, 694th in the series, appeared in the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times
in its June 12, 2010 issue, © 2010 by Manila Times Publishing. All rights reserved.
