If the rain had stopped I would call Peter

[EngLearner]

Suppose it's raining. John and Samantha are standing at the window, watching the raindrops falling on the ledge. It seems like it's not going to stop raining soon. John says to her:

1. If the rain had stopped, I would call Peter and Sarah, and we would all go hiking in the forest.

2. If it had stopped raining, I would call Peter and Sarah, and we would all go hiking in the forest.

Are the bolded tenses used correctly in this context? If so, I also wonder if it would be correct to use either "stopped" or "were to stop" instead of "had stopped."

 

[tedmc]

The past tense "stopped", which comes under the second conditional, would be appropriate there, not the past perfect..

 

[jutfrank]

Present fact: It is raining

If it wasn't raining, I'd call Peter and we could all go hiking in the forest.

* Some speakers would employ the 'traditional' subjunctive verb form were instead of was.

 

[EngLearner]

Logically, if it had stopped raining, then it wasn't raining, and conversely, if it wasn't raining, then it had stopped raining (provided that it was raining before). "If it had stopped raining" and "if it wasn't raining" appear to be interchangeable. Why does "had stopped" not fit in my examples?

 

[probus]

1. Language is not logic. Often logic helps, but sometimes it does not.

2. In this case "had stopped"is the pluperfect tense. That tense is used when we are already talking about the past but need to refer to something even further in the past. Here's an example of that usage: After reading the questiion, Peter had intended to answer it, but in the end he kept silent because another teacher had beaten him to it.

 

[jutfrank]

"If it had stopped raining" and "if it wasn't raining" appear to be interchangeable. Why does "had stopped" not fit in my examples?

Because you're talking about a hypothetical present-time situation, not about the past. The fact that you mentioned John and Samantha looking out the window makes that clear.

 

[jutfrank]

In this case "had stopped"is the pluperfect tense.

That's what it's called for French, but for English we teachers call it the 'past perfect'.

 

[EngLearner]

Perspective #1:

It started raining an hour ago. When John and Samantha walk over to the window, they see that it hasn't stopped raining yet. The have the following dialog:

Samantha: "The rain hasn't stopped yet!"
John: "If it had, I'd call Peter, and we could all go hiking in the forest."

Perspective #2:

It started raining an hour ago. When John and Samantha walk over to the window, they see that it's still raining. They have the following dialog:

Samantha: "It's still raining!"
John: "If it wasn't/weren't, I'd call Peter, and we could all go hiking in the forest."

Perspective #3:

It started raining an hour ago. When John and Samantha walk over to the window, John thinks that it's unlikely that it will stop raining now. They have the following dialog:

Samantha: "It's going to continue raining!"
John: "If it were to stop/stopped raining now, I'd call Peter, and we could all go hiking in the forest."

 

[EngLearner]

A is not a native English speaker, while B is. A asks B a question, and B replies to it. The following dialog takes place between them:

A: "'Halloween isn't for two more days.' Does it mean that it has passed or that it's still to come?"

B: "It's still to come. If it had passed, you might say 'Halloween was two days ago.'"

The sentence that B says was said by a native English speaker on this forum. I understand B's statement to mean the following: "If Halloween was/were in the past, you might say 'Halloween was two days ago.'" Is my understanding correct? Do you find the mixed conditional that B says in reply to A correct?

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, it's correct.

 

[EngLearner]

So, if Halloween is still to come, and someone wants to talk about what they would do after it had passed, they can say either:

1A. If Halloween was now in the past, I would do such and such (now or in the future).

Or:

2A. If Halloween had passed, I would do such and such (now or in the future).

Sentences #1A and #2A are equivalent because if Halloween is now in the past, then it has passed, and if it has passed, then it's now in the past. By the same token, if the end of the rain is still to come, and someone wants to talk about what they would do after it had stopped, it would be logical to draw the following analogy with the Halloween example:

1B. If it wasn't raining now [= if the rain was now in the past], I would do such and such (now or in the future).

2B. If the rain had stopped, I would do such and such (now or in the future).

Again, #1B and #2B are equivalent because if it was raining earlier, and now it's not raining, then the rain has stopped; conversely, if it has stopped, then it's no longer raining.

 

[jutfrank]

What's the question?

 

[EngLearner]

What's the question?

Present fact: It is raining

If the present fact is that it's not the end of the rain now, and the end is in the future (say thirty minutes from now), then it's incorrect to use the past perfect, as in version #2B:

2B. If the rain had stopped, I would do such and such (now or in the future).

Because, as you say:

you're talking about a hypothetical present-time situation, not about the past.

On the other hand, if the present fact is that it's not Halloween now, and Halloween is in the future (two days from now), it's correct to use the past perfect, as in version #2A:

2A. If Halloween had passed, I would do such and such (now or in the future).

Which follows the pattern of this sentence:

It's still to come. If it had passed, you might say 'Halloween was two days ago.'

Yes, it's correct.

In both cases, we have a hypothetical present-time situation. Why are the two cases not parallel?

 

[jutfrank]

I'm struggling to understand what you're asking. In what way are you saying the two cases are not parallel?

It is not raining.
It has stopped raining.

Are you asking something about the difference in meaning in this pair?

 

[EngLearner]

I'm struggling to understand what you're asking. In what way are you saying the two cases are not parallel?

I'm asking why it is appropriate to say the following version with the past perfect "had passed" if Halloween is still to come:

If Halloween had passed, you might say 'Halloween was two days ago.'

And why it's not appropriate to say this version with the past perfect "had stopped" if the rain is bound to stop some time from now:

If the rain had stopped, I would call Peter, and we could all go hiking in the forest.

From what I understand, that's what's been suggested in this thread. I think the past perfect "had stopped" is correct in the rain example for the same reason that "had passed" is correct in the Halloween example.

 

[5jj]

Unlike some other members, I find all the examples below acceptable and natural:

1. If the rain had stopped, I would call Peter and Sarah, and we would all go hiking in the forest.

2. If it had stopped raining, I would call Peter and Sarah, and we would all go hiking in the forest.

3.
Samantha: "The rain hasn't stopped yet!"
John: "If it had, I'd call Peter, and we could all go hiking in the forest."

4. If Halloween had passed, I would do such and such (now or in the future).

 

[jutfrank]

If you're suggesting that I think your version with 'had stopped' is ungrammatical or doesn't make sense, that's not the case.

Fact: It's raining
Counter fact: If it wasn't raining

Fact: It hasn't stopped raining
Counter fact: If it had stopped raining

These are not perfectly synonymous as they differ in aspect. Based on the context you provided in post #1 of Samantha and John looking at the rain, where you began with "Suppose it's raining", I thought that the first pair above was the one that better fits what you had in mind.

Does this clear up what you're asking?

 

[EngLearner]

Does this clear up what you're asking?

Yes, it does.

If it started raining an hour ago, and they now come up to the window to check if it's still raining and see that the rain hasn't stopped yet, I think it would be right to say:

If the rain had stopped, I'd call Peter, and we would all go hiking in the forest.

John is saying that since the expected change (the rain stopping) has not occurred yet, he won't call Peter now, and therefore, they won't go hiking in the forest now.

Based on the context you provided in post #1 of Samantha and John looking at the rain, where you began with "Suppose it's raining", I thought that the first pair above was the one that better fits what you had in mind.

What do you think about what I've written above in this post?

 

[jutfrank]

What do you think about what I've written above in this post?

Now I understand what you mean, though it's not very easy to imagine the situation you have in mind. Why is the speaker thinking about the fact that the rain hasn't stopped rather than the fact that it's currently raining? Why do you need to use the verb 'stop'? And why do you want to use a perfect instead of a simple aspect? If you insist on using the verb 'stop', then why not say 'If the rain stopped' or 'If the rain were to stop'?

The only other thing I'd add is that it would be more natural to use the word 'it' as the subject of the if-clause.

If it had stopped raining, ...

 

[EngLearner]

Why is the speaker thinking about the fact that the rain hasn't stopped rather than the fact that it's currently raining?

Because rain is a process that has a beginning and an end. If such a process is currently ongoing, it can be considered as either not having stopped or as being in progress. It's up to the speaker to choose the perspective they prefer to frame their thoughts. English grammar allows that.

Why do you need to use the verb 'stop'?

It's just a possibility. The speaker can express the idea in some other way.

And why do you want to use a perfect instead of a simple aspect? If you insist on using the verb 'stop', then why not say 'If the rain stopped' or 'If the rain were to stop'?

By definition, "If the rain stopped/were to stop..." implies that it's unlikely for the rain to stop. However, rain is a process that has a beginning and an end. Therefore, if it's currently raining, it's inevitable that it will stop raining at some point. I think a specific time in the future should be mentioned by the speaker if they believe the rain is unlikely to stop then. For example, "If it stopped/were to stop raining two minutes from now...". Anyway, that specific future time should be implied by the context if not explicitly stated. Otherwise, the meaning would be that it's unlikely for the rain to stop, which doesn't make sense. On the other hand, the perfect aspect doesn't have that flaw.

I think a case could be made for all three aspects (perfect, continuous, and simple), as I outlined in post #8. In my opinion, the choice depends on the speaker's perspective.