Two Letters To Rule Them All

If Trump had won Pennsylvania….

If Trump concedes…

If Trump runs again in 2024….

If the Democrats win the Senate run-offs in January…

In the wake of the recent election, I keep hearing and reading the word ‘if’. It is hard to think of a more consequential word than this little subordinating conjunction. It is a two-letter gateway to infinite possibilities, one that almost instantly raises the blood pressure and stokes the fires of anticipation. ‘If’ is truly the swing state of the English vocabulary. It resonates at all levels: political, professional, and personal. In fact, it is hard to think of a word I use more often with my kids:

If you finish your homework, you can play Roblox for an hour (often works).

If you answer back one more time, you will be grounded (rarely works).

If your mum says it’s ok, you can have that toy (not only is it a consequential word, but it’s also a wonderfully passive-aggressive, responsibility-absolving word).

My ever-resourceful, and increasingly bold, daughter has of course figured out how to turn the advantage in her favour: If you give me a treat daddy, I will finish my dinner (always works).

Bearing in mind how important this word is, I am always amazed at how frequently people mangle its usage. In this article, I am going to discuss some mistakes, and provide an outline of the correct way to use ‘if’ in conditional forms.

In grammatical terms, ‘if’ sentences are usually part of the conditional family. In other words, they introduce consequences for things that may or may not happen. Textbooks will often refer to the forms by number: zero conditional, first conditional, second conditional, third conditional. However, I have always found that nomenclature to be unnecessarily abstract. In my opinion, it is better to divide into two categories: real and unreal. For example, I might say the following:

·     If it rains tonight, I will stay home and watch Netflix.

This sentence introduces a very real future possibility, given that it is November in Canada. Thus, I would refer to this as a future real conditional. Compare it with the following:

·     If it snowed tonight in Rio, the Flamengo match would be cancelled.

This sentence introduces an unreal future possibility, given that summer is approaching in Brazil and Rio, to the best of my knowledge, has never seen snow (I still take gleeful delight in seeing my Brazilian friends complain through chattering teeth about 10-degree weather!)

I don’t want to put my loyal readership to sleep, but it is very important to note the structures used in the above sentences (I will provide a real-life example to illustrate this importance a bit later.)

·     Real future conditional: If + subject (it) + verb in present tense (rains) [comma] subject (I) + verb in future tense (will watch)….

-  We can also invert the sentence order like this: I will watch Netflix if it rains tonight. (note that there is no comma here)

·     Unreal future conditional: If + subject (it) + verb in past tense (snowed) [comma] subject (the Flamengo match) + verb in future-in-past tense (would be cancelled)…

-  Again, we can invert the order, but we must omit the comma if we choose to do this. 

As you can see, the grammar is important here: ‘will’ conveys possibility; ‘would’ conveys imaginary, hypothetical, or even impossible situations.

We can also make real and unreal conditional sentences for the past and present. For the sake of brevity, I am going to look at past unreal conditionals. Let’s use the example from the beginning about that crucial swing state:

·     If Donald Trump had won Pennsylvania, he might have won the election.

Now we all know in reality that he did not win Pennsylvania and, as a result, he did not win the election. Therefore, the above sentence is unreal. Despite the fact that we cannot change the past, it is very common to use such structures, particularly when conveying regret or when indulging in a delicious bit of ‘I told you so’: If you had listened to me, you would have gotten the job!

Here is the structure for past unreal conditional:

·     If + subject (Donald Trump) + verb in past perfect* (had won) [comma] subject (he) + modal/have/past participle (might have won)….

-  The same rules of inversion mentioned above also apply here.

* past perfect structure is: had + past participle

The most striking real-world example I can think of to illustrate the importance of using the correct forms is a CTV television interview with Stephane Dion in late 2008. At that time, Dion was campaigning as the Liberal leader in the forthcoming federal election. CTV host Steve Murphy asked Dion the following question: “If you were prime minister now, what would you have done about the economy and this crisis that Mr. Harper has not done.”

After a futile attempt to answer, a visibly flustered Dion asked Murphy to clarify at what point he had hypothetically become prime minister:

Dion: “I had been prime minister two-and-a-half years ago?”

Murphy: “If you were the prime minister right now.”

Dion: “If I am elected next Tuesday, this Tuesday, it’s what you are suggesting?”

Murphy: “No, I am saying if you were hypothetically prime minister today.”

They then agreed to restart the segment, but after several further false starts (including the same question), Dion and his team asked that the interview not be aired. CTV initially consented to this, but then went ahead and broadcast the seemingly blooper-filled interview on the evening news. The damage was instant: viewers were appalled that a candidate for prime minister couldn’t understand such a basic question. It was all downhill from there, and Stephen Harper and the Conservative party held on to power. However, upon closer review, we can see that Dion’s confusion was actually quite justified. Let’s take a closer look at the question:

·     If you were prime minister now (unreal present tense condition), what would you have done (unreal past tense result) about the economy and this crisis that Mr. Harper has not done.

There is a jarring mixture of tenses here that actually doesn’t make sense. It suggests that a hypothetic current situation, with no reference to duration, could have an effect on something that happened previously. It would be like asking President-Elect Joe Biden the following:

·     If you were president now, what would you have done to stop the spread of COVID-19 in March?

The correct question would be:

·     If you had been president in March, what would you have done to stop the spread of COVID-19 at that time.

If you are a Brazilian football fan, imagine this question:

·     If you were coach of the Brazilian team today, would you have played Ronaldo in the 1998 World Cup final?

It does not make any sense, and while it is obviously an extreme example, it has the same illogical structure as Murphy’s question.

It would have made more sense to ask:

·     If you had been prime minister at the onset of the financial crisis, what would you have done?

English is not Dion’s first language, and he was undoubtedly striving to ensure that he understood every part of the sentence, so it is little wonder that he became confused after being asked such a structurally-flawed question.

Even on a more day-to-day basis, there are common mistakes with this grammar that are like nails on a chalkboard to me. Here is one, using past unreal:

·     If I would have known, I would have done it.

Just writing that makes me feel uneasy! It should be:

·     If I had known, I would have done it.

And that, dear readers, is the last bullet point in this piece!

In this time of lawsuits and recounts, you are going to hear the word ‘if’ a lot. In the case of the presidential election, it really is a case of two letters to rule them all. If you find this all a bit confusing (present real conditional), you can always contact me for more information (present real result)!