Are the following sentences both grammatically and logically correct?
It if rains at the weekend, it’ll be very busy.
If we go to the pool now, we won’t go to the beach.
If I have a party, it’ll be very busy.
Thanks.
I guess they’re all gramatically correct (all 1st condtional). Without more information the "it"s in the first and third example are a little, erm… lacking in clarity, though I guess even the third would still be acceptable.
Where I come from, we don’t say “at” the weekend, but rather “on” the weekend (or just “this weekend”).
AFIK, the rule for first conditional is that the verb in the first clause takes the Simple Present (Present Simple) form, and that in the second clause takes the Simple Future (Future Simple) form, so all 3 look good.
The rule also follows with the alternative Simple Future use of BE+Going To being equally acceptable in the second clause.
Bones, the “at” the weekend rather than “on” is a UK vs North America usage.
Agreed. You would say “on” Saturday “at” six o’clock, so why on earth say “at” the weekend? Sounds stoopid.
Well, there is an argument that it follows the use of “at” with events, such as “at Easter”, “at Chinese New Year”…
Anyways, don’t ask me, I say “on”…
All fine except for clarity. I’d suggest restructuring the sentences. But grammatically OK, methinks.
At the weekend. In a fortnight from now.
Thanks. I’m not generally aware of Brit. usage. BTW, that’s why I tend to simply report on what’s used where I come from, rather than calling different usage ‘wrong’. 
I am always amazed at how many of you folks are able to cite rules of grammar and then actually discuss the same. I doubt that I could list even five rules of grammar, and I am certain that I would not likely be able to discuss those.
When and where did you folks learn these rules?
I studied my bag off but still find grammar like a parrallel universe or something. It is like describing, in detail, the exact method by which you fry an egg, for example. OK first the brain stem sends a signal to the higher brain centres indicating low blood sugar. This bio-chemical event has been associated, as a result of repeated exposure with “the word” hunger and it’s cognate “hungry” and the frontal lobes, taking into consideration the immediate environment and the presence of the sweet pea creature initiates an electrical chemical process that causes the lungs to emit air (which passes over the vocal chords which do not vibrate for the hhh sound but do for the /u/ sound in /ung/ which is itself the product of a complicated arrangement of the tongue, jaw and lips at the appropriate moment) only to be stopped for the /ng/ aspect of the /ung/ sound which in turn is released with the explosive /g/ followed of course by the /r/ and the /i/ and before you know what has happened you have said “hungry” and that is how you fry an egg.
OK so that wasn’t a very good explanation. In any event, trust me, grammar is hell.
Native speakers of a language all have intuitions about what is correct or incorrect grammar. The difficulty is explaining why something is correct or incorrect!
I’m from the UK and saying “on the weekend” doesn’t feel right. But I have no idea why “at the weekend” does feel right.
I think I should really have been asking this question, rather than the original.
Those questions were part of a multiple answer test. The students saw a load of sentence starts and then had to match them to the best sentence ends, under the instruction of “Match the two parts of the sentences.”
Many students chose:
It if rains at the weekend, we won’t go to the beach.
If we go to the pool now, it’ll be very busy.
However, if they chose the next two sentence patterns should we say those aren’t correct as logically they make less sense than the above two sentences?
It if rains at the weekend, it’ll be very busy.
If we go to the pool now, we won’t go to the beach.
My conclusion is that the test is poor and that both sets of answers are correct as we are teaching grammar, not logic.
The test is ass.
The grammar in all of them is technically correct.
[quote=“Tigerman”]I am always amazed at how many of you folks are able to cite rules of grammar and then actually discuss the same. I doubt that I could list even five rules of grammar, and I am certain that I would not likely be able to discuss those.
When and where did you folks learn these rules?[/quote]
We be English teachers, TM. How would we not know it? How do you know all this law stuff you give (good) advice about in the legal forums?
Actually, a good number of ESL teachers I know aren’t conversant in grammarese, so not all teachers know this stuff. I’ve met a good number of ESL teachers in the states who are proudly lacking of grammatical knowledge. For me, I learned most of it in primary and early secondary school because I went to traditional (US) private schools until I got to High School. The stuff I learned in teaching cert and applied linguistics courses was more about perspectives on how to use grammatical knowledge in language teaching and learning rather than just learning about grammar. Some folks have minds that absorb declarative knowledge and some folks don’t. To me, the only people who really need to have declarative knowledge of grammar are linguists and language teachers.
I havan’t taught English for many a year, but still find it singularly useful to be able to explain to the non-native speakers whose work I edit exactly why what they wrote sucks balls.
And hey, while we’re up, this has always bugged me, shouldn’t it be “grammarial” rather than “grammatic”?
And yeah, “grammatical” is redundant.
[quote=“the chief”]The test is ass.
The grammar in all of them is technically correct.[/quote]
Couldn’t have put it better myself. I fuckin’ hate exams that you are FORCED to mark in a certain way, when they are actually not 100% black & white themselves.
English is rarely black & white.
Obviously you have never read a book, sir. 
Obviously you have never read a book, sir. [/quote]
Books? What are those? Before my time. It’s all podcasts and stuff these days, mister.
[quote=“Tigerman”]I am always amazed at how many of you folks are able to cite rules of grammar and then actually discuss the same. I doubt that I could list even five rules of grammar, and I am certain that I would not likely be able to discuss those.
When and where did you folks learn these rules?[/quote]
Through the classes I took for my linguistics degree.
I took courses that focused solely on different aspects of language: Syntax, Phonology (and French Phonology for my French degree), Stylistics, Historical Linguistics, Sociolinguistics, Psycholinguistics, Pedagogical Grammar, etc…
Oh, and the course I took for fun and to round out my credit hours my 4th year of university: Traditional English Usage (aka Grammarian Bible Thumping). Man, I loved that class.
But then again, I openly admit to others and my students that I’m a grammar geek. They’re beginning to get the same enthusiasm and curiosity for the “why’s” of English grammar as I do. And that makes me happy.
Almost as happy as when I get to use the future perfect progressive…
“By the time I leave Taiwan, I will have been teaching English for seven years.”