If I want to ask someone whether he will do something...

[Heidi L]

With "had won the lottery" that refers to a time in the past before something else happened in the past.

Would you have donated money to charity if you had won the lottery?

I would accept either, but I prefer "had left".

That confuses me, because then I guess we should say "Would you HAVE driven a car if you had left your licence at home?", but this is not talking about situations in the present or in the future.

 

[Ali Hsn]

I disagree. A second conditional is used for hypothetical situations. It also applies to the future. In a case such as this, since winning the lottery is unlikely, I think the second conditional is more appropriate.

Thank you for helping me find my mistake! It made me check back the related rules and yes, you and emsr2d2 are right.

 

[Raymott]

Are you saying that you would use the verb 'left' (or had left) rather than 'forgot' (or had forgotten) in that question,
Yes
or you would never use the past tense ( or the past perfect)?
No, I would prefer the past perfect in this context.

Is that to say, "Would you ever drive a car if you HAD left your licence at home?" implying "Would you ever drive a car (future in the past) if you had left (in the past) your licence at home?"
Er ... no. No, the meaning is that your keys are still at home. Note where the 'ever' is. It is not asking whether you drive your car if you had ever left your keys at home. That would be silly. "I left my keys at home once - three years ago, so now I never drive my car." This is quite unrealistic, and the context rules it out.

If I want to ask someone if he's going to donate some money to a charity (in the future) if he wins a lottery (in the future), is the correct version "Would you ever donate some money to a charity if you win a lottery?"?

No. "Would you ever donate money to charity if you won the lottery." That is subjunctive. It's what I'd say, but others might put it differently, since apparently, many English speakers don't like the subjunctive.
The normal sequence of tenses is "Would you if you did?" and "Will you if you do?" So, "Will you donate some money to a charity if you ever win the lottery?"

PS - Sorry 'licence', not 'keys' - the grammatical points are the same.

 

[Heidi L]

Is that to say, "Would you ever drive a car if you HAD left your licence at home?" implying "Would you ever drive a car (future in the past) if you had left (in the past) your licence at home?"
Er ... no. No, the meaning is that your keys are still at home. Note where the 'ever' is. It is not asking whether you drive your car if you had ever left your keys at home. That would be silly. "I left my keys at home once - three years ago, so now I never drive my car." This is quite unrealistic, and the context rules it out.

I'm getting even more confused. I have to admit I can't understand your explanation.

Suppose that in Taiwan drivers have to carry their driver's licence with them while driving on the street, or they'll get a ticket if they get caught by a policeman. I want to know if someone still wants to drive his car when he finds that he has left his driver's licence at home, how would you ask the question? In subjunctive way?

 

[emsr2d2]

Would you still drive if you realised you'd left your driving licence at home?

That's the most natural way for me. You don't need to use "ever" at all.

 

[Heidi L]

Would you still drive if you realised you'd left your driving licence at home?

That's the most natural way for me. You don't need to use "ever" at all.

Would you still drive (at the present time/in the future?) if you realised you'd left your driving licence at home (hypothetically?)?

 

[emsr2d2]

Would you still drive (at any time present or future) ...
... and yes, hypothetically.

 

[Raymott]

I want to know if someone still wants to drive his car when he finds that he has left his driver's licence at home, how would you ask the question? In subjunctive way?

This is a totally different question from what we've been discussing, if you are referring to a specific event. "Would" doesn't enter into it, because now you have a situation where the person has left their licence at home. There's nothing hypothetical or subjunctive about it. "You've left your licence at home. Are you still going to drive?"; "Are you still going to drive, given that you've left your licence at home."
Otherwise, if you are not referring to a specific situation, but you want to know what a person would do, that has been answered several times. "Would you still/ever drive your car if you had left your licence at home". While some people would use the simple past in the second clause, several of us have said that we prefer the past perfect.

 

[Heidi L]

This is a totally different question from what we've been discussing

I am so sorry that I've been taking all of you so much time. I think it's all because I didn't exactly understand what the sentence pattern 'Would you ever...if...' is asking about. Now I realize the difference between a specific situation and a general one. Thank you!

Er..., please allow me to go back to the sentence "Would you (ever) drive if you had left your driver's licence at home?" Like what you've said, the normal sequence of tenses is "Would you if you did?" then why did most of you in this case prefer the past perfect?

Mike has said about the past perfect that it refers to a time in the past before something else happened in the past, so is the question asking whether you would drive from the point of time in the past (the time you had left the licence ) to the present time?

 

[5jj]

Sometimes there is very little practical difference in meaning between a perfect and a non-perfect form:

1. What will you do if you leave your licence at home?
2. What will you do if you have left your licence at home?

In no. 2, the speaker has made it clear that the leaving of the licence occurs before the possible reaction. However, as this is clear anyway , no. 1 is fine.

The same is true of a more hypothetical question:

3. What would you do if you left your licence at home?
4. What would you do if you had left your licence at home?

In a counterfactual past situation, we are more likely to follow the only standard 'third conditional' pattern:

5. What would you have done if you had left your licence at home?

'... if you left' is unlikely.

 

[Heidi L]

Thank you, 5jj. I think you have brought out some very interesting ideas, and I have a few more questions to ask. But first I need to know if I really recognize the difference between the following two sentences:

- I can't go on holiday because I have broken my leg.
- I can't go on holiday because I broke my leg.

Is the second sentence suggesting that "Oh, I broke my leg once, three years ago, for example, so I can never go on holiday"?
(If I were right, that means I finally understand why Raymott has said "That would be silly." )

 

[5jj]

No, it doesn't. You are trying to read too much into a tense difference. In practice, there may well be very little difference, if any, between those two sentences.

 

[Raymott]

Thank you, 5jj. I think you have brought out some very interesting ideas, and I have a few more questions to ask. But first I need to know if I really recognize the difference between the following two sentences:

- I can't go on holiday because I have broken my leg.
- I can't go on holiday because I broke my leg.

Is the second sentence suggesting that "Oh, I broke my leg once, three years ago, for example, so I can never go on holiday"?
(If I were right, that means I finally understand why Raymott has said "That would be silly." )
Exactly.

Look, I think you're just going to have to accept that these sentences mean the same thing, given the context. 5jj says that the simple past "is unlikely". So, that's me, 5jj, and Mike, at least who suggest that the past perfect is the form to use here - even though I'm sure some people use the simple past. The perfect tense is not strictly necessary logically. But it's what most of us say.
I don't think you're going to get a clearer answer. It's one of those cases where there is no perfect answer (if you'll excuse the pun).

 

[Heidi L]

Is the second sentence suggesting that "Oh, I broke my leg once, three years ago, for example, so I can never go on holiday"?
(If I were right, that means I finally understand why Raymott has said "That would be silly." )
Exactly.

Sorry, Raymott, are you saying you agree that these two sentences mean the same thing, meanwhile you would say "I can't go on holidy because I broke my leg" is silly?

 

[5jj]

Not being able to go on holiday because you broke your leg three years ago is a very unlikely situation.

 

[Raymott]

[/COLOR][/B]Sorry, Raymott, are you saying you agree that these two sentences mean the same thing, meanwhile you would say "I can't go on holidy because I broke my leg" is silly?

No. "Exactly" means that you have understood my previous example. No, you have already identified the concept that I called silly.
Your questions are starting to confuse me. We don't seem to understand each other. The thread's on its 4th page, and to me it's simply going round in circles. I'll leave it to the others.

 

[Heidi L]

No, it doesn't. You are trying to read too much into a tense difference. In practice, there may well be very little difference, if any, between those two sentences.

I'd really like to know, if possible, how most native English speaker learned (or were taught) during their childhood about which tense they would use. There must be some criteria that can be easily memorized and used.

Well, let's forget all the grammar rules and take the following sentence as example:
- Would you drive if you had left your driver's licence at home?

You would natually (can I say that?) use "if you had left" instead of "if you have left", is it because 'had left' makes you think of past tense but 'have left' doesn't, and past tense is something that would be used in hypothetical situations?

Perhaps I can't experess my question well in English, or perhaps you can teach me in a way you would teach a very young little child, no grammar, just intuitive simple rules.

 

[Heidi L]

Look, I think you're just going to have to accept that these sentences mean the same thing, given the context. 5jj says that the simple past "is unlikely". So, that's me, 5jj, and Mike, at least who suggest that the past perfect is the form to use here - even though I'm sure some people use the simple past. The perfect tense is not strictly necessary logically. But it's what most of us say.
I don't think you're going to get a clearer answer. It's one of those cases where there is no perfect answer (if you'll excuse the pun).

Hi, Raymott, I apologize if I had offended you. I will be very happy if you can tell me what I have said are inappropriate, whatever they are, I didn't mean it.

 

[Barb_D]

We aren't taught these things - we pick them up naturally. It's part of the language we're immersed in.

 

[Heidi L]

OK.

I think of another way to ask my question, the answer might be a key to my confusion.

If I ask "Would you do something if you had left your driver's licence at home?", the leaving of the licence at home must happen first, right? So, my question is, both 'I had left my licence at home' and 'I have left my licence at home' can indicate the 'condition' that must happen before you do something, depending on what you choose to use one tense instead of the other?