Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004

rolleston@onetel.net.uk (rolleston) wrote on 02 Jan 2004:

I didn't think I was involved in a debate. I was just asking a
question.

Okay, I can buy the idea that the "condition is an essential part of
most conditionals". That's a generalization that applies in "most"
but not "all" cases.

Can you give me an example of a conditional in which the condition is
not an essential part? I'm assuming that there are two types of
conditionals here, explicitly stated conditionals of the type "If X,
then Y", and implicit conditionals in which the "If X" portion is
understood, has been previously stated, or is otherwise known to the
speaker/writer and the listener/reader. Can there be a conditional
without an explicit or implicit condition?

I suppose that you're invoking some rule or other that I am not aware
of when you say that a syntactic relationship (clausal subordination)
is voided by semantic necessity (In the sentence "If X, then Y", Y
depends on X for meaning).

I don't want to argue about which takes precedence, syntax or
semantics, but I don't know enough about the theory of how these two
aspects of language interact such that the semantic necessity of the
syntactically dependent, ie "subordinate", clause somehow makes it
impossible to identify the syntactically dependent clause. The "if"
clause requires the the "then" clause because it cannot stand alone
as a "complete sentence" (given the appropriate definition of a
complete sentence) [=syntactic dependency], but the "then" clause
needs the "if" clause because it cannot stand alone as a "complete
idea/thought" (given the appropriate definition of a complete
idea/thought) [=syntactic dependency].

In other words, both clauses are dependent and neither one is
independent. But this seems to be mixing up levels. I agree with what
you say about each clause needing the other, but it doesn't make
sense to me to argue that semantics can affect syntax in that way.

Is the following the kind of main clause containing "would" that you
meant when you said "I concede, though, that the main clause of some
conditionals may be better able to stand on its own, e.g., where the
word 'would' occurs. In some cases the presence of an unexpressed
condition may be inferred from the context"?

  I would have the rain fall
  between 3:00 and 5:00 a.m.

rolleston@onetel.net.uk (rolleston) wrote on 02 Jan 2004:

No, I foolishly snipt that sentence:

"By this time next year, if I win the lottery, I shall be rich."

The initial adverbial phrase is "By this time next year".

In writing, they all seem identical in meaning to me, but, in speech,
there might be a nuance to each structure, depending upon tone,
stress, pitch, etc.

I don't see, though, how something said in midstream could be
construed as an afterthought. That seems appropriate for # (ii).