[Grammar] If he had not died, he would turn 100 years old tomorrow.

[Fagin]

The other day I stumbled upon an old discussion when someone questioned the use of conditionals in this article:

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/24/politics/jfk100-caroline-kennedy-100th-birthday/

Had he lived, John F. Kennedy would turn 100 years old on May 29.

As it is seen from the address the article was published before the unreal event.

But still an ESL teacher commented:

I consider only 'would have turned' to be correct in that irrealis condition.

Then exploring the question I came across a book with this sort of examples:



I did not understand this because I had been taught that 'would have' is used for the past. But what I see in this examples is that both the 'irrealis' condition and the unreal event are placed in the future.

My question therefore is what if we place the 'irrealis' condition in the past and the unreal event in the future?
Which is correct?

If he had not died, he would turn 100 years old tomorrow.
If he had not died, he would have turned 100 years old tomorrow.

 

[jutfrank]

The ESL teacher you mention is simply wrong. It's probable he/she was confusing this May to be in the past.

 

[Fagin]

The ESL teacher you mention is simply wrong. It's probable he/she was confusing this May to be in the past.

Now I'm totally confused. Here's another example from a book:

What's the difference? In both examples both the condition and the event are set in the future. The book says '"would have" is correct.

 

[Fagin]

So long as the situation that results in the irrealis is realised at the moment of speaking, a sentence such as 4b seems incorrect:

4b. If he had come (in the past), he'd have been (now) in the guest room. - In the first clause we have double distancing, in time and reality; in the second clause we also have double distancing, in time and reality. This seems incorrect because there should be n distancing in time.

Unlike the title example in this example the word be is a stative word and the example strongly implies that the state has already changed - yes he was in the guest room but he's already gone.

The verb turn is dynamic and once you have turned 100 years you are there forever.

But to turn 100 years is a natural course of events while there are some verbs that express people's will. will buy can be understood both as a future event of buying and a current state of will.

Do I understand it correctly that in this example both versions are correct:

This is a great car. I would buy it right now if I hadn't lost all my money yesterday.

This is a great car. I would have bought it right now if I hadn't lost all my money yesterday.

?

​

​

 

[jutfrank]

I disagree with Robert and jutfrank on this.

I'm sorry but I disagree that we disagree!

I just meant that if the ESL teacher claimed that would turn is wrong, then he/she is wrong, since would turn is not wrong. Quote: "I consider only 'would have turned' to be correct ..." I regret I didn't make that clear enough.

I think you are confused mainly because there is a difference of opinion. Two members think the 'third conditional' sentence with future reference is not possible.

No, I definitely do not think that. I agree with almost all of what Piscean said, in fact.

Give me some time to finish work and I'll try to respond with my comments, and on how I understand things...

 

[Fagin]

Give me some time to finish work and I'll try to respond with my comments, and on how I understand things...

That would be great.

 

[jutfrank]

Now I'm totally confused.

About what?

What's the difference? In both examples both the condition and the event are set in the future. The book says '"would have" is correct.

The passage explains the difference. Do you mean you didn't follow what it said? Yes, both would have and would are correct.

 

[jutfrank]

If he had not died, he would have turned 100 tomorrow.

I think that this sentence would sound normal and natural to most native speakers. The only people who might consider it incorrect are probably people who have learnt that the 'third conditional' (if + past perfect, modal perfect) always and only refers to past irrealis situations, for example,

If he had not died (he did die) he might/would have been re-elected in 1964 (he was not re-elected).

Distancing in tense, backshifting, can, and often does, distance in time or reality:

1a.He is here (now).
1b. He was here (in the past). - distancing in time.

2a. I hope he is here (in the future).
2b. I wish he was/were here now (in the present). - distancing in reality; he is not here.

3a. If he comes (in the future), we'll put him (n the future) in the guest room.
3b. If he came (in the future), we'd put him (in the future) in the guest room. - distancing in reality. The speaker sees the situation in 3b as less likely than in 3a.
3c. If he had come (in the past) we'd have put him (in the past) in the guest room. - double distancing, in time and in reality.

So far so good. Now we come to the 'mixed conditional':

4a. If he had come (in the past), he'd be (now) in the guest room. In the first clause we have double distancing, in time and reality; in the second clause we have single distancing.

Yes, that's all good, and nicely explained. It's this next part that is interesting to me:

So long as the situation that results in the irrealis is realised at the moment of speaking, a sentence such as 4b seems incorrect:

​If he had come (in the past), he'd have been (now) in the guest room. - In the first clause we have double distancing, in time and reality; in the second clause we also have double distancing, in time and reality. This seems incorrect because there should be no distancing in time.

Yes, exactly. So the question for me here is What is determining this double distancing? What is going on in the way the speaker conceives of the events involved, the effect of which is to produce this double distancing?

We can possibly explain this by the speaker's conflation of two ideas: we would have put him (in the past and he would be (now). It may be inconvenient that sentences like this don't slot into the traditional second, third and mixed categories, but I don't think that makes it 'incorrect.

Very interesting. I'm not completely sure I follow but I think you may mean that the speaker may be being distracted by a competing thought in his mind, namely he would have been put in the guest room. Is that right? If so, I certainly do adhere to the idea that thoughts compete for dominance in our consciousness, and that this competition can sometimes result in an utterance that is fully representative of neither one thought or the other.

Let's turn now to:

5a. If he had not died (in the past), he would turn (in the future) 100 tomorrow.

5b. If he had not died(in the past) , he would have turned (in the future) 100 tomorrow.

I, personally, find 5b more natural than 5a. I can't justify this by the speaker's conflation of two ideas: he would have turned (in the past) and he would be (in the future), because the turning is in the future. I believe that 'he would turn' suggests a possibility, however remote, of this actually happening. The people who utter 5b reinforce the counterfactuality of his turning by using a form almost exclusively denoting counterfactuality*, 'he would have turned'.

Firstly, I think I personally would probably say he would be turning 100 tomorrow. Secondly, I can't explain this with a conflation of two ideas, either, and I do like your idea of reinforcement of counterfactuality. However, I do have an alternative explanation. Here it is:

The apparent logical problem is that the turning is in the future. Well, I think I can offer an analysis where the turning is actually in the past. I mean in the psychological past. What I'm suggesting is that the speaker mentally transports himself to the future (i.e. tomorrow) and then reflects on the irrealis from that point of view. This would certainly explain the double distancing.

In support of this, I think it is very reasonable to presume that when uttering this sentence, a speaker would be imagining/conceiving the future timeframe (tomorrow) and the events taking place therein (his turning 100, possibly even a mental image of him, however vague). This mental transportation now takes the speaker to a point in time after the event—a place that is more significant (since he's now 100) than a place before the event (where he's only 99).

I think this explanation can be supported by the evidence that in many examples (including Huddleston and Pullum's) there is a clear future time marker, such as tomorrow/next week, etc.

Let's look at H&P's examples.

i. If you had told me you were busy, I would have come tomorrow.

ii. If you had come tomorrow, you would have seen the carnival.

Significantly, both of the above employ a clear future time marker (tomorrow). Both could be explained in the way I have suggested—that is, the distancing in the second clause is a sign that the apodosis/protasis relate not to future time, as H&P claim, but to past time. (That is, psychological past time.)

iii. If your father had been alive today, he would have been distraught to see his business disintegrating like this.

This example is problematic for my explanation as it lacks obvious reference to future time. H&P note that "both situations are located in present time". The only answer I can provide at this moment is that there must be some way in which the speaker is commenting retrospectively from a point in future psychological time. If that is the case, there is certainly little evidence to believe so, I concede. With such a lack of evidence, and without a reasonable explanation, I personally would be tempted to count this this last sentence as unacceptable. The only reasons I would have for saying this are:

a) I can't imagine saying this myself.
b) The thought would undoubtedly be more clearly expressed, and hence more intelligible, with a regular mixed conditional (he would be distraught).

 

[Fagin]

About what?

The passage explains the difference. Do you mean you didn't follow what it said? Yes, both would have and would are correct.

Probably I failed to communicate my question. I perfectly understood the reasoning in the passage. I do not understand the difference between the example with the team that would have won and the president who would turn. In both examples the irrealis condition is in the future - had he lived VS had they played - and the impossible event is in the future. Yet the passage says one has to choose would have with the team while you say would is correct with the president.

 

[jutfrank]

the passage says one has to choose would have with the team

Sorry, I'm a bit tired. Can you how me where in the text you see that? It's only saying that 'only would have is possible' under certain conditions of use, right?

With the president, if he had not died is not in the future, it's in the past.


By the way, which book is the passage from?

 

[Fagin]

Sorry, I'm a bit tired. Can you how me where in the text you see that? It's only saying that 'only would have is possible' under certain conditions of use, right?

Right! The conditions being irrealis.


​

With the president, if he had not died is not in the future, it's in the past.

he had not died was with someone (he could be a president or he could be someone else). With the president was had he lived which I understand as had he lived to his anniversary. Which is in the future.​

 

[jutfrank]

With the president was had he lived which I understand as had he lived to his anniversary. Which is in the future.

Ah, I see. Well, I think most natives would interpret had he lived as equal in meaning to had he not died or had he survived [the assassination attempt].

 

[emsr2d2]

For me, the difference lies in whether the first part uses the positive or the negative.

If he had not died, he would have turned 100 tomorrow.
If he were still alive, he would turn 100 tomorrow.

I'm not saying that's a rule but the two sentences above are the ones I would use.