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?