118. Problems with Conditional “if”

.

If copper is heated, it expands

Writing conditional sentences with “if” can cause a variety of common language errors

FEATURES OF CONDITIONAL “if”

Most grammar descriptions have plenty to say about conditional if, but they often simply present its associated subtle meaning differences and rather complicated word combinations without highlighting many of the common errors that these can give to writers whose mother tongue is not English. In this post I wish to focus wholly on various errors that the use of conditional if can cause, and to offer information that might help them to be avoided.

To facilitate the analysis of the problems, it will be useful to appreciate the main properties of if sentences. Consider this example:

(a) If copper is heated, it expands.

The underlined parts are verbs. Two are usually needed with if, establishing it as a conjunction (see 174. Eight Things to Know about Conjunctions). The verb with if can come first, as here, or second, with if in the middle of the sentence (see 25. Conjunction Positioning). A starting if may be followed immediately by ever (see 272. Uses of “Ever”, #4), or later on by then (see 64. Double Conjunctions).

The action or state of the if verb is a “condition” for the action or state of the other verb. This means it has two properties. Firstly, it is needed before the action or state of the other verb can happen or exist – this other verb expresses a consequence of the if verb. Secondly, the action or state of the if verb is hypothetical – its occurrence is not definite like many of the causes in the post 32. Expressing Consequences. For more on this difference, see the end of 61. “Since” versus “Because”. For a use where the condition meaning is obscured, see 247. Exotic Grammar Structures 6, #2.

The tenses of the two verbs can be changed in various ways in order to express different meanings. In most cases, both of the verbs have to be changed together. I do not propose to list all of the possibilities because they are easily found in mainstream grammar descriptions. However, as an example, expands above can be changed to will expand, in order to show that the speaker is not just reporting a generally-recognised rule, but is in wholehearted agreement with it, making it almost like a prediction (see 147. Types of Future Meaning, #1). Unusually, this particular change does not require the other verb to be changed.

.

PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH CONDITIONAL “if”

1. Similarity of “if” to “in case”

In American English, in case is often the same as future-referring if. In British English, they refer to the future in different ways:

(b) Paracetamol may be administered if the patient becomes feverish.

(c) No visitors are allowed in case they contract the virus.

In (b), the event after if happens before the other event in the sentence, and is a hypothetical cause; whereas in (c) the event after in case happens after, and is an unwanted hypothetical result. In case means “to prepare for the undesirable possibility that…” (see 100. What is a Grammar Error?).

If and in case can both be paraphrased with a preposition (in the event of and in case of : see 205. Paraphrasing Prepositions with Words of Other Kinds). For example sentences with these, see 48. Tricky Word Contrasts 1, #10.

.

2. Similarity of “if” to “whether”

If resembles whether in two different ways. Firstly, the two words are often (but not always) interchangeable in indirect questions, e.g.:

(d) Nobody knows if/whether the stars can ever be reached.

This, of course, is a different use of if from the conditional one. For more about it, see 57. Indirect Questions in Formal Writing.

Secondly, both if and whether can be paired with a subsequent or to introduce condition-like ideas. The difference is that these ideas are true conditions when placed after if, but are often denied conditions after whether. Consider this example from 99. When to Use whether… or…:

(e) Whether they won or lost, the children received a prize.

This means that all of the children were given a prize – neither winning nor losing was a condition for one. You have to use whether and not if here because won and lost cover all of the possible conditions. If implies the existence of other possible conditions.

.

3. Similarity of “if” to “when”

Some languages have a single word for both if and when (the German and Dutch word is actually spelled like when, causing its overuse in English). When lacks the hypothetical part of the meaning of if – the possibility of the non-existence of the event or state that it introduces.

Consider sentence (b) again. The presence of if suggests that the patient may never become feverish at all. Replace it with when, however, and future feverishness becomes expected. The same difference exists in most of the other if sentences above, and also with if and when after (dis)like it or similar (see 217. Tricky Grammar Contrasts 1, #3).

However, some sentences are not so greatly affected by when replacing if. Most seem to be timeless generalizations (see 179. Deeper Meanings of “if”, “Open Conditions”). Sentence (a) above, for example, is a generalization where saying when copper is heated…instead of if… makes almost no difference. An example of a past-time generalization is:

(f) Excursions were cancelled if/when the weather was bad.

Both if and when here imply that the weather was sometimes bad. If there is a difference, it may be that when implies a more frequent occasional occurrence.

.

4. Similarity of “even if” to “even though”

Even conveys surprise. The choice between if and though depends on degree of hypotheticality, just as with if versus when, if being the more hypothetical. Consider this:

(g) The children received a prize even if they failed.

If again suggests that failing did not always occur – some children succeeded. Replacing if with though, however, would mean all of the children failed. The sentence would then be “concessive” rather than “conditional”, closer to the use of although than if.

A common error with even is to use it with if instead of though. Consider this further example:

(h) Even … chickens have wings, they cannot fly.

If here would leave it undecided whether chickens have wings, whereas though would imply they do. Since most people know that chickens have wings, using if would be strange (though not impossible). In general, even if leaves unconfirmed the reality of the action or situation after it.

.

5. Use of “will” and “would” after “if”

Many learners of English incorrectly use will and would after if like this:

(i) *If guests will arrive at 6, they will eat at 7.

(j) *If the earth would not be tilted, seasons would not exist.

In general, will and would cannot follow if unless they mean “agree to” (if you would come this way, …) or “insist on” (if you will keep complaining, …). The correct verb forms above are arrive and was not tilted.

.

6. Unusual Possibilities

One unusual possibility is an imperative verb instead of if. For details, see 88. Exotic Grammar Structures 1, #3.

Secondly, if with a past tense verb alongside a would statement does not always have the commonly-taught suggestion of an “unreal” event or situation that the following illustrate:

(k) If Greenland had a warmer climate, more people would live there.

(l) If a meteor had not struck the earth, the dinosaurs would have survived.

These are “unreal” because we understand a negative meaning of the verb after if: that Greenland does not have a warmer climate, and a meteor did not not strike (i.e. it did strike) earth. This negativity is indicated by the tense of the two verbs: further in the past than would normally be expected.

Other examples of unreal verb usage in this blog are after as if (see 191. Exotic Grammar Structures 3, #3), after wish that and if only (see 251. The Grammar of “Only”, #1), and in questions starting What if…? (see 274. Questions with a Hidden Meaning, #2) and Would you mind…? (see 297. Types of Response to a Question, #3).

The unusual possibility with this structure is a real event after if:

(m) If the city was threatened, the Athenians would call an Assembly.

In a past-time context, this means the city was sometimes threatened, and then an Assembly was called. The sentence is the same kind as (f) above, with if similar to when, merely expressing less inevitability of occurrence. This meaning is possible because both of the verbs express a repeatable event – unlike the ones in (k) – and would can have a “used to” meaning instead of the normal conditional one.

The same unusual meaning is possible in some sentences with a had verb after if, but only in combination with would rather than would have:

(n) If it had rained, the wall would glisten.

Here, two different uses of would can again be understood. With conditional would, had rained is unreal, saying no rain has recently fallen because the wall does not now glisten. With the historical use (= “used to”), had rained means rain sometimes fell in the past, and after that the wall used to glisten. The reason why the conditional would is not would have, the most typical form alongside an unreal had verb, is that had rained here is related not to the past simple tense rained, but to the present perfect has rained – a tense closer to being “present” than “past”.

A third unusual possibility is were to after if. It refers to the future like the present simple tense in sentences such as (e), but it suggests strong unlikelihood of happening (see 119. BE Before a “to” Verb, #7). The other verb needs would, not will. An example is:

(o) If the guests were to arrive at 6, they would eat at 7.

Speakers of other languages than English need to be especially careful in sentences like this to avoid saying would instead of were to. Note also that were is often preferred to was even after a singular noun. When this happens, were is a rare unchanging form called a “subjunctive”. For some other situations when a subjunctive verb is possible, see 88. Exotic Grammar Structures 1, #6.