Look at these examples to see how third and mixed conditionals are used.
We would have walked to the top of the mountain if the weather hadn't been so bad.
If we'd moved to Scotland when I was a child, I would have a Scottish accent now.
If she was really my friend, she wouldn't have lied to me.
Try this exercise to test your grammar.
- Grammar test 1
Read the explanation to learn more.
Grammar explanation
Do you know how to use third and mixed conditionals?
Third conditionals and mixed conditionals
Conditionals describe the result of a certain condition. The if clause tells you the condition (If I hadn't been ill) and the main clause tells you the result (I would have gone to the party). The order of the clauses does not change the meaning.
If I hadn't been ill, I would have gone to the party.
I would have gone to the party if I hadn't been ill.
Conditional sentences are often divided into different types.
Third conditional
The third conditional is used to imagine a different past. We imagine a change in a past situation and the different result of that change.
If I had understood the instructions properly, I would have passed the exam.
We wouldn't have got lost if my phone hadn't run out of battery.
In third conditional sentences, the structure is usually: If + past perfect >> would have + past participle.
Mixed conditionals
We can use mixed conditionals when we imagine a past change with a result in the present or a present change with a result in the past.
1. Past/Present
Here's a sentence imagining how a change in a past situation would have a result in the present.
If I hadn't got the job in Tokyo, I wouldn't be with my current partner.
So the structure is: If + past perfect >> would + infinitive.
2. Present/Past
Here's a sentence imagining how a different situation in the present would mean that the past was different as well.
It's really important. If it wasn't, I wouldn't have called you on your holiday.
And the structure is: If + past simple >> would have + past participle.
Do this exercise to test your grammar again.
- Grammar test 2
Hello,
I have two questions.
Would you recommend using 'would' instead of will in type 1 ( real if and real main clause)?
Some credible sources say you can use it. Example: If we invite him, Adam would visit us on Monday. (If we choose to invite him over, we predict that Adam will accept our invitation and come over.) Source: https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/How-to-Use-Could-Would-and-….
If it is acceptable to use "would," then doesn't it make a mixed conditional with real condition in the if clause and unreal in the main clause which is against the rule of mixed conditionals?
2) Would you recommend using 'should' with type 2 conditionals (unreal if anytime and unreal main clause any time)? Some credible sources say you can use it. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/conditionals-if
Many others say you cannot use it.
Hello jar07,
I'm not a fan of the first/second/third/zero/mixed categorisation, to be honest. It's not an accurate description of the system and imposes restrictions and rules which are not supported by the language as used. Really, this way of describing conditionals is a gross simplification which may be useful when learners first meet them but which actually leads to problems later. That said...
1) I would not recommend this. To me, this example is problematic because of the logical inconsistency between the two clauses (an real/likely condition and an unreal/unlikely result. Of course, non-standard forms occur in every language and English is no exception so I do not doubt that these kinds of examples crop up from time to time. However, I would say that they do not follow standard usage and are not the best models for extrapolating a general rule or pattern.
2) Yes, it is possible to use 'should' in either clause of conditional sentences. If the if-clause 'should' refers to probability and has a sense of 'if it so happens that...' or 'if by chance...' It is quite formal and suggests something out of the speaker's control or influence. For example, in Robert Brooke's famous poem 'The Soldier' he uses 'should' in the if-clause to give the sense of 'If by chance I... / If I happen to...'. Structurally, the sentence is a real/likely future conditional but 'should' makes the condition a little less likely:
In the result clause 'should' can certainly can be used in unreal conditionals. For example:
If you packed well, then you should have at least two sweaters. [to meet the requirement of good packing two sweaters is a necessity]
It's a complex area. You can find a fuller discussion of it here:
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/274115/should-in-conditionals
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi.
About type 1, no you can not do this in standard English. We use "would" for past tenses while in conditional sentences type 1, we are talking about future.
Also, according to this link (https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/english-grammar-referen…), the word of "would" defined as "past tense of "will" and therefore, we use it as past beliefs about the future (e.g. I thought we would be late, so we would have to take the train). Read the link and you will realize everything by yourself.
About type 2, should understand the word "Should" doesn't have the same meaning as "Would". when we use "would", we're talking about something that is not going to happen or it's not available or possible that the moment, but can be possible in our imagine.
Hello,
What if we want to describe a repeated, unreal action in the past? Two friends are talking about their days in college:
A: - You know, I used to have a very interesting English teacher. He was so passionate about his subject, he would exude confidence and energy every time he walked into the classroom.
B: - Probably he was on a special diet, or he might take some vitamins.
A: - Laughing.
B: - What? Seriously, what would you use if you were in his place? What would you do if you saw a bunch of lackadaisical students every single day?
I think Conditional Type 3 is too limited to a particular situation.
And 'What would you have used if you had been in his place?' - sounds too cumbersome.
Thank you.
Hi Tony_M,
The questions in B's second answer are in the second conditional and refer to an unreal present or future situation. Even though the teacher's actions were in the past, it's still coherent to pose a question about encountering this same situation again but in the present/future, and I think this is what sounds most natural. It doesn't necessarily need to be a third conditional.
I agree that the third conditional sounds a bit cumbersome (although it's grammatically fine) in this example, especially as it's a spoken dialogue. I would expect something like "What would you have done (in his place)?" as a less cumbersome way to say the same thing.
I hope that helps.
Jonathan
LearnEnglish team
Hello Jonathan R,
Thank you very much. You are an absolute rock star.
All the examples I've found describe the third conditional as something
separate and clear-cut, not repeated or stretched in time. As I mentioned before, such sentences have always seemed too limited and restricted, probably due to the fact that we have Past Perfect and would have + ppv in them. Also, I've always heard people use them to speculate about some situations in the past with time markers like 'yesterday', 'last year' or similar, and that, again, makes more focused on a particular action.
Does it sound natural when people use the third conditional for repeated past situations?
I reckon that there might be somecases when those past situations might be discussed using the second conditional (like the sentences in my first dialog), but at the same time if you change my sentence a bit:
- If you had been in his place all those times or all last year or when we were students, would you have enjoyed your everyday routine?
It will sound a bit strange, will it not?
Is there a better way, or do I have to make do with the third conditional when it comes to any past situations?
Thank you again.
Hi Tony_M,
I'm glad you found my answer useful. That's a sharp observation about how people use the third conditional. However, I think there is no reason why we can't use it for a long-running state or a repeated action. Here is an example I found (from a novel) of a long-running state: If I had known how awfully bitter this love would be, I'd have avoided you.
About repeated actions such as your example, I agree that your sentence sounds a bit strange. But in my view, that's not connected to the third conditional. I would say something like this:
There's nothing wrong with adding "all those times" in the sentence, and it emphasises the repeatedness more. But it's clear that "If you had been in his place" refers to all of those occasions, not just a single occasion, so I don't feel any need to emphasise "all those times". Actually, time markers may be used but they are not obligatory (e.g., the example from the novel above).
Similarly, I think it's unnecessary to say "when we were students" because the speaker referred to his/her student days earlier in the conversation, so the timeframe is already defined and it's not necessary to repeat it.
I hope that somehow helps to find some answers!
Jonathan
LearnEnglish team
Thank you. Your help is greatly appreciated! I’m very grateful!
Hello
if had been coming tomorrow you would have met your mother
1-This sentence is about the past, why did he say tomorrow? and
Is tomorrow over? Explain please
if had been coming tomorrow you would meet your mother
Is tomorrow not over yet?
if had been coming today you would have met your mother
Is today over? or Today the meeting is over
if had been coming today you would meet your mother
Is today not over yet? or Today the meeting is not over
Hi HLH,
Firstly, in all these sentences, the subject is missing and it should be "If you ..." or "If he ..." or some other subject.
1. I don't understand what the person wants to say. The first part (if had been coming tomorrow) seems to be about the future, and the second part (you would have met your mother) seems to be about the past, so overall the sentence doesn't make sense. If the sentence is about the past (an unreal past), it should be: If you had come (that day), you would have met your mother.
2. No, this seems to be about the future so tomorrow has not started yet.
3. "Today" is not yet over but the time of the meeting is over (because would have met your mother is a competed action).
4. Would meet your mother is about the present/future, so "today" is not over and the meeting also hasn't happened yet.
May I also add, it's not clear why the past perfect continuous (had been coming) is used. To refer to an unreal future action (e.g. sentences 2 and 4), saying If you were coming ... or If you came ... would be simpler and clearer.
I hope that helps.
Jonathan
LearnEnglish team