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!
@thelearningdepot2 жыл бұрын
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 Жыл бұрын
Thanks so much for this lesson. You are an articulate teacher.
@thelearningdepot Жыл бұрын
Thank you! 😊
@ekaterinaalekseeva5172Ай бұрын
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?
@ekaterinaalekseeva5172Ай бұрын
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.
@bandulap78882 жыл бұрын
Wow, Thank you very much. I learned a lot about conditionals.
@thelearningdepot2 жыл бұрын
Glad you did! Thanks for watching. 😊
@prashantmishra19942 жыл бұрын
Hi Teacher! Again,a wonderful video because you understand students' psych completely which makes you an amazing teacher. Thanks & regards.
@thelearningdepot2 жыл бұрын
Thank you. I appreciate that. 😊
@ylchu42 жыл бұрын
As usual succinct and clearly present, thanks!
@thelearningdepot2 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much! 😊
@amitavabose-6 Жыл бұрын
Thank you
@An4oyzzz Жыл бұрын
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 Жыл бұрын
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 Жыл бұрын
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 Жыл бұрын
Excellent analysis. English grammar is not an exact science and even linguists and grammarians do not strictly agree. Thanks! 😊