All About Conditionals: Zero, First, Second, Third, Mixed, & Reduced

[@famholin]

Hi Lulu, I have a question. What if the conditional is happened in the past. Take for example: According to the laws of the past, if a married woman earned wages, that money had belonged to her husband. Is this sentence I did correctly? Thank you for your help!

[@thelearningdepot]

You're referring to the past real conditional. Some say it's the same as the zero conditional, except it's in the past. It's used to describe habits or conditions that used to be but are no longer. Here's your sentence: According to the laws of the past, if a married woman earned wages, the money belonged to her husband. (You don't need "had" in the results clause.) Great sentence, btw!

[@riigi3786]

Thanks so much for this lesson. You are an articulate teacher.

[@thelearningdepot]

Thank you! 😊

[@ekaterinaalekseeva5172]

Thank you, Lulu! What about conditional with future in the past and conditionals used by most Americans with would in both parts? Could you cover this too?

[@ekaterinaalekseeva5172]

If I sang better doesn’t mean now, it’s generally, so it’s applicable both to present and past, that’s how it can affect the situation in the past. It simply means that I can’t sing well now and neither I could before. Just like Present Simple it says that something is generally true, inherently like this. I hope I made it clear.

[@bandulap7888]

Wow, Thank you very much. I learned a lot about conditionals.

[@thelearningdepot]

Glad you did! Thanks for watching. 😊

[@prashantmishra1994]

Hi Teacher! Again,a wonderful video because you understand students' psych completely which makes you an amazing teacher. Thanks & regards.

[@thelearningdepot]

Thank you. I appreciate that. 😊

[@ylchu4]

As usual succinct and clearly present, thanks!

[@thelearningdepot]

Thank you so much! 😊

[@amitavabose-6]

Thank you

[@An4oyzzz]

Hi Lulu! Thank you for your video! That was helpful. I feel confident with the conditions now 🧡 Can you please explain the difference between sentences (11:38 time code in your video): 1. If I had invested in gold, I (could/may/might/would) be rich now. 2. If I invested in gold, I (could/may/might/should/would) have been rich now. Is the meaning the same? I'm confused

[@thelearningdepot]

So technically, there is a difference. "If I had..." is in the past perfect which indicates that one even occurred before another past event. The second example is in the simple past which is used for sequential past events. For spoken English and informal situations, either one is acceptable if the context is clear.

[@radovanvukadinovic5692]

Hello, teacher! Thank you for putting together such amazing videos and making so much effort to explain English grammar in such a clear and picturesque way. However, I have a question. I hope you'll find some time to answer it since this is something that bothers me, considering the fact that I'm an English teacher. Speaking of mixed 2 conditional, you say that "a present action affects the past". How's that possible? In my opinion, the only logical way to use mixed 2 conditional is when there's a present STATE (not action), which, when we wish it were different, that change of the state could have impact on something that's already finished in the past. For example: "If I sang better, I would've joined the choir." When I say "if I sang better," I don't refer to one specific action of singing but my ability of singing (or the state of not being able to sing well). I want to say that I don't have talent for singing, which is a state, not an action. Also, "If you heard the doorbell, you would've let him in." I'm not imagining that now, in this moment, if you heard the doorbell, you would somehow go to the past and let him in, which doesn't make any sense. But what I'm trying to say is that you USUALLY don't hear the doorbell, which is also some kind of a state, it's not an action. When you speak about modals in the mixed conditionals, you give this example sentence for the mixed 2 conditional: "If I invested in gold, I (could/may/might/should/would) have been rich now." How can we even have the word "now" in a 3rd conditional results clause, when it's related to the past? And if we neglect the grammatical structure of this sentence for a moment and strictly consider it's meaning, wouldn't it be better if we simply used the 2nd conditional here: "If I invested in gold, I would be rich now"? Thank you!

[@thelearningdepot]

Excellent analysis. English grammar is not an exact science and even linguists and grammarians do not strictly agree. Thanks! 😊

[@zahi9369]

Great 👍

[@thelearningdepot]

Thank you! 😊