Could some helpful soul tell me which of the following are correct?
My initial reaction was that all three are correct, but then I thought that maybe number 2 is incorrect but commonly used. Any thoughts?
All three are correct. Technically there is a difference, but in common usage they are equivalent.
It’s similar to:
What would you do if you are stranded on a desert island?
What would you do if you were stranded on a desert island?
They are different types of conditional sentences, the latter is more hypothetical than the first. The first should really be used if you are discussing one of several potential futures- you are going to parachute into an unknown area and getting stranded is something that might happen.
But while there is that technical distinction, in general practice we just use whichever one we want.
Thanks puiwaihin. 
[quote=“puiwaihin”]All three are correct. Technically there is a difference, but in common usage they are equivalent.
It’s similar to:
What would you do if you are stranded on a desert island?
What would you do if you were stranded on a desert island?
They are different types of conditional sentences, the latter is more hypothetical than the first. The first should really be used if you are discussing one of several potential futures- you are going to parachute into an unknown area and getting stranded is something that might happen.
But while there is that technical distinction, in general practice we just use whichever one we want.[/quote]
I would disagree. If it might happen, then use a future tense throughout: What are you going to do if you are stranded on a desert island? / What will you do if you are stranded on a desert island?
I’d never allow the first construction, as it a hybrid of two rules, and doesn’t make any sense, not even in informal language.
In the OP, examples 1. and 3. are correct, and 2. is just bad English.
[quote=“Stray Dog”]I would disagree. If it might happen, then use a future tense throughout: What are you going to do if you are stranded on a desert island? / What will you do if you are stranded on a desert island?
I’d never allow the first construction, as it a hybrid of two rules, and doesn’t make any sense, not even in informal language.
In the OP, examples 1. and 3. are correct, and 2. is just bad English.[/quote]
In your example you’re using a sort of mixed conditional, but not how it is typically used. Mixed Conditional.
Do a Google search on the term “would you do if you are” and you’ll see just how common it is. You get more than twice as many hits as “What are you going to do if you are” and about the same number as “What will you do if you are”
Grammar rules from grammar books are artificial.
So even if #2 is “bad grammar”, it’s only bad because someone said it was. People use it. It makes sense and we use it for a certain reason even if we don’t really understand it unless we look really closely at it.
I prefer to teach correct English. Web sites are not edited before publication, so Google is not the best way to determine correct usage, but it will show you common mistakes.
Some 337,000 Web authors believe that loose is the better spelling of lose. Are we to start accepting that, as it falls under ‘common usage’?
Illiteracy is a huge problem in the States right now. The majority of Web sites are written by Americans, and I would see that as a bigger reason to teach correct usage as opposed to teaching something that sounds OK because you read it on the Internet all the time.
I appreciate that there are different ways of looking at the evolution of the English language, but most developments come in the form of new vocabulary or spellings, not alterations to grammar rules. My own point of view is that we should filter out bad English that is coming into common usage as a result of educational failings, to prevent it becoming accepted as the norm.
As a teacher, I want my students to excel, not be mediocre. That means teaching them correct grammar as opposed to commonly accepted mistakes.
Just my opinion.
p.s. puiwaihin, I usually agree with your posts; this is the first time I’ve had a different opinion to yours. I very much support your posts on teaching and discipline. Didn’t want you to think I was against you.
I agree with Stray Dog
[quote]1. Do you mind if I open the window?
2. Would you mind if I open the window?
3. Would you mind if I opened the window? [/quote]
2 is wrong.
[quote]What would you do if you are stranded on a desert island?
What would you do if you were stranded on a desert island? [/quote]
1 is wrong.
Brian
[quote=“Stray Dog”]I prefer to teach correct English. Web sites are not edited before publication, so Google is not the best way to determine correct usage, but it will show you common mistakes.
Some 337,000 Web authors believe that loose is the better spelling of lose. Are we to start accepting that, as it falls under ‘common usage’?[/quote]
Certainly, Google will turn up common errors. But the technique of looking at how things are actually said is part of corpus studies and really can be helpful. The important point is to compare usages.
What was the exact search you looked for? Are you sure you weren’t getting a lot of results for “loose” where you “set something loose”? I did a search on “loose a ball” and “lose a ball” and found that there were 8 times as many instances of the correct spelling-- and there were probably some false positives since “loose” used as a verb meaning “to release” was in some of those results. And “lose your way” vs. “loose your way” turned up the correct usage nearly 50 times more than the error.
Just because you find it doesn’t make it right or accepted, but when you find one as much as the other then it is saying something.
Perhaps you mean poor grammar? Most people are literate, but their skills are questionable. But for me, if it’s something I hear “all the time” then that is getting to be part of the language. The less I hear it, the more likely it is to be a mistake.
That’s a fair view. It’s the coservative one. Personally, I think we should teach standard grammar, but when the standard no longer reflects what people really say it is the standard that needs to be adjusted. So long as what is being said reflects reality.
Now, I’m not saying that we should start adding my example into the textbooks and saying it is correct just yet, but it looks to me like a solid trend and part of common speech. It should be placed somewhere between split infinitives and the word “ain’t”
I agree. I wouldn’t teach that to kids. I thought the OP was asking about it for his own understanding. When we teach we should instruct the kids in correct/standard usage. But if an advanced learner said they had heard the above and asked why, I’d explain it in a descriptive rather than prescriptive way (with due warning that it is not perfectly acceptable language and as a 2nd language learner they should avoid it).
Hey, I’m not at all offended when people disagree with me. It all depends on how they disagree and how logical it all sounds.
Personally, I don’t use the simple past with a 2nd conditional, I use “were”. But having heard it a number of times I thought I’d point it out. Perhaps I should have been a bit more descriptive and less permissive about it.
Next post: why I think it’s a good structure despite not being in the grammar books
Why does it make sense to me?
I think it fits in with our current set of conditionals.
Zero Conditional: Used for absolute truth
If it is A then B is true.
First Conditional: Used for Used for high to reasonable probability
If you A(present simple) then I will B
Second Conditional: Used for negligible probability- very hypothetical
If you were A I would B
Third Conditional: Used for the impossible due to past truth
If you had been A I would have B
I think the structure we are discussing fits in as…
1.5th Conditional: Used for low probability-- more fudging
If you are A I would B
It think it also makes sense for another reason:
If you closed the window, would he hit you? (2nd conditional)
Well, when you said that you hadn’t closed the window. If you had you would have known already. The sentence is talking about an immediate action, not a past one. It makes more logical sense to use the present simple.
If you close the window, would he hit you? (1.5 conditional)
Asking about present action and conditional response.
Ah well. I personally don’t use it, but when I hear it I understand the meaning and I don’t think there’s any real reason why it shouldn’t be used. The fact that grammar books don’t like it doesn’t necessarily make it bad.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed-man only sees half of what is. The rest see nothing.
If in the land of the blind the one-eyed-man were to only see half of what is, would the rest see anything?
If you close the window, will he hit you?
If you closed the window, why did he hit you?
If you were to close the window, would he hit you?
I wouldn’t see this as a “1.5” conditional, but rather as an artifact of some rather strict grammatical patterns. in many situations either the first or second conditional can be used, and it’s perhaps inevitable that there will be some mixing between the two as there is a fair amount of time for the brain to switch gears between saying clause a and clause b. it’s never likely to cause confusion but not gramatically correct and not something i would teach, but not something i would even bother to correct in a conversation class (it’s more than good even to get that far)