VOOZH about

URL: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/second-third-conditional.2735085/

⇱ second/third conditional | WordReference Forums

Menu
Install the app
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

second/third conditional

Francesco22

Senior Member
italiano
Hello everybody,

I have been struggling with a grammar rule for a long time. By the way, refreshing my English, I have read on my book: "we sometimes mix second and third conditionals if a hypothetical situation in the past has a present/future consequence."

Probabily, this is the answer to my question, but I am not sure.

Is this sentence correct? "If FC Chelsea had won yesterday, it would win the championship."

What is unknown to me is how to say that something which would/wouldn't have happened in the past could/couldn't have future consequences that are now almost impossible, considered what has happened.

Please, correct my mistakes, if there are any. Hope my message is clear enough to receive your replies.

Thank you
If FC Chelsea had won yesterday, it would win the championship.
This one sounds a bit off to me, Francesco. For reasons I cannot quite define. Maybe it has to do with logic. But I think it is grammatical.

This one is good for sure:
If you had bought that car yesterday, you wouldn't have to walk now.
Hi boozer,

yes, probabily it has to do with logic...and that's why I have posted the same question in the Italian Only Forum...
Probabily it is logically incorrect...but I wasn't sure and that's why I have asked for confirmation.

Based on your example, is this one good?
"If FC Chelsea had won the derby yesterday, fans would still be celebrating."
Hello, Francesco!

So, to say what you mean is important to remember that:
2nd conditional needs to be expressed with a main clause (I would go to Australia) and a second clause (if I had enough money). This espresses a condition wich is jsut very uncertain.
3rd conditional is basically the same as the second one in terms of construction but what changes are tenses. This one, instead, expresses a condition that would have been possible in the past if something else had appened due to make it possible.
So, you have to use the third conditional in this situation. Remember you have to use the in the main clause and in the second clause.
Example: If I had been there, I would have seen the scene. (You were not there and you could have seen that only if you had been there. So, you didn't see the scene.)

If FC Chelsea had won yesterday, it would win the championship.
Hope this will help 👁 Smile :-)
If FC Chelsea had won yesterday, it would win the championship.

I would only replace "it" with "they". Then the sentence would be grammatically correct (or at least it would sound better and still be correct).


If FC Chelsea had won yesterday, they would have won the championship.

That's correct also, but implies that the tournament is already over.
Hope this will help 👁 Smile :-)

Hi VittoYi,
my problem here is not how to write third conditional sentences, but how to manage situations in which something happened/not happened in the past affects things in the future.
Another example could be (according to me) "If painters had finished painting the house yesterday, the plumber would start installing the water system tomorrow".
The painters didn't finish yesterday, so tomorrow the plumber won't install the water system.
Is it correct or not?
I would only replace "it" with "they".
Oh, sure - this solves part of the puzzle. 👁 Smile :)
But then, how can we know they would win if they had won yesterday. 👁 Confused :confused:
If anything, I would have phrased it differently:
If Chelsea had won yesterday, they would now be able to win the championship.

If FC Chelsea had won the derby yesterday, their fans would still be celebrating. 👁 Tick :tick:

This one sounds perfect to me, Francesco.
Oh, sure - this solves part of the puzzle. 👁 Smile :)
But then, how can we know they would win if they had won yesterday. 👁 Confused :confused:
If anything, I would have phrased it differently:
If Chelsea had won yesterday, they would now be able to win the championship.
Well, that sounds less confusing... But how do you go about expressing the idea that they would be sure to win the championship now if they hadn't lost the game yesterday?
Yes, right... "it" instead of "they" was a mistake...and I am sorry about it.

And of course I know we cannot be sure they would win the championship if they had won yesterday, but in Italy (at least in Tuscany) we do use this kind of phrasing and I thought I could use it in English too.

Anyway, now everything's clearer to me.

Thank you very much indeed.
Well, that sounds less confusing... But how do you go about expressing the idea that they would be sure to win the championship now if they hadn't lost the game yesterday?
That is part of the problem. can they be sure that they would win the championship now? 👁 Big Grin :D
(Well, they could have fixed some matches, etc., there are various scenarios, but...) You know what? Adding the word 'now' somehow seems to make things better. 👁 Smile :)
Maybe, just maybe, otherwise I cannot be sure about the meaning of 'would'... 👁 Confused :confused:
That is part of the problem. can they be sure that they would win the championship now? 👁 Big Grin :D
(Well, they could have fixed some matches, etc., there are various scenarios, but...) You know what? Adding the word 'now' somehow seems to make things better. 👁 Smile :)
Maybe, just maybe, otherwise I cannot be sure about the meaning of 'would'... 👁 Confused :confused:
The 'sure' part is just an exaggeration. Imagine that the only team technically stronger than them was the one they had to play against yesterday... and if they had won, it would be all downhill from there. So you could say with a fair amount of certainty that they were going to get the trophy in the end.
Back
Top Bottom