This is from a song:If I leave here tomorrow Would you still remember me? I wonder, what are the “roots” and reasons of using real condition with unreal consequence?
*

*

*

I"m not sure what you mean by "roots." If you"re asking why the songwriter chose those particular forms that"s outside our scope here.

You are watching: If i leave here tomorrow will you still remember me


This is from a song:If I leave here tomorrowWould you still remember me?I wonder, what are the “roots” and reasons of using real condition with unreal consequence?
*

This is from a song:If I leave here tomorrowWould you still remember me?I wonder, what are the “roots” and reasons of using real condition with unreal consequence?
Yes, it"s true that this is not what they say in English grammar method books.It means "he really could leave - a real or close possibility", and the result, "remembering" him, is spoken of as tentative or uncertain in some way.The combination of these two clauses is possible. We can hear sentences like this in regular, ordinary, everyday conversation.It is correct and not substandard.The "roots" are the same as any other type of hypothetical sentence or question. It"s one other way that we use the grammar of the language to create meaning.
*

I suppose the first rule of English conditionals is that you have to decide whether you are talking about the consequences of 1. a “proximate” possibility, 2. a remote possibility or 3. an impossibility. But the second rule of English conditionals is that we sometimes or often jumble these options in careless, emotive or poetic ways. The categories “correct” and “incorrect” are difficult to apply to the products of the second rule.
I suppose the first rule of English conditionals is that you have to decide whether you are talking about the consequences of 1. a “proximate” possibility, 2. a remote possibility or 3. an impossibility. But the second rule of English conditionals is that we sometimes or often jumble these options in careless, emotive or poetic ways. The categories “correct” and “incorrect” are difficult to apply to the products of the second rule.
This is interesting. I would like to ask you about this. In the case of conditionals, would you say that, at least, sometimes an apparent (or not apparent?) "jumbling of options" is what someone really means to say? And, then, in this way, it"s not really a jumbling of options. It would be a sentence that communicates someone"s intended meaning. Do you believe that there is anything wrong with this sentence? In other words, would this, at all, be a "jumbling of options" to you?"If you want to be sure that you get a table, it would be a good idea to make a reservation." Here is another similar example."If we make a reservation for 7:30, would that be okay with you?"I believe such combinations are possible and make sense even though this sort of sentence is not taught in English grammar method books and probably not in English foreign language classrooms. Or, in other words, English grammar method books do not cover everything.
se16teddySenior Member
London but from Yorkshire
English - England
I would like a hamburger.It would be a good idea to make a reservation.Would that be OK with you?None of these sentences needs an “if”. Each one either is not dependent on a condition at all or idiomatically suggests a condition independent of any “if” clause that might be present in the sentence.

See more: Nier Automata Become As Gods Edition Difference, Differences Between Xbox And Ps4'S Updated Re


"If you want to be sure that you get a table, it would be a good idea to make a reservation.""If we make a reservation for 7:30, would that be okay with you?"
Accordingly, in each of these sentences the word “would” does not refer to the condition specified in the “if” clause, but to a different implied condition. These sentences are unambiguously type 1, as I defined the types in #7.Incidentally, I was careful to point out that there is not necessarily anything wrong with “jumbling”.