conditional sentences

English as a Second Language English Vocabulary, Grammar and Idioms
1
  1. If he meets her she would be happy.
  2. If he meets her she will be happy.
  3. If he met her she would be happy.
  4. If he should meet her she would be happy.
  5. If he should meet her she will be happy.
    Please correct the above and comment.
    Which sentences are conditional?
    Thanks.
2

Strictly speaking,

  1. If he meets her, she will be happy.
  2. If he meets her, she will be happy.
  3. If he met her, she would be happy.
  4. If he has to meet her, she will be happy.
  5. If he has to meet her, she will be happy.
    Please correct the above and comment.

And, the other type is: If he had met her, she would have been happy.

3
  1. See 2 and 3.
  2. If he meets her, she will be happy.
  3. If he met her she would be happy.
  4. If he should meet her, she would be happy.
  5. If he should meet her, she will be happy.

Anglophile’s recast to ‘has to’ in 4 and 5 changes the meaning of the phrase completely.
If he should meet her = If he were to meet her.

4

Beeesneees/Anglophile,

  1. If he meets her she will/(X: would) be happy.
  2. If he met her she would be happy.
  3. If he should meet her she would/will be happy.
    Do you say that all the above sentences are conditional?
    Thanks.
5

Beeesneees/Anglophile,

  1. If he meets her she will/(X: would) be happy.
  2. If he met her she would be happy.
  3. If he should meet her she would/will be happy.
    Do you say that all the above sentences are conditional?
    Thanks.
6

Yes. We call the three types of conditionals real, unreal and unrealized though they may also have other names.

As regards 5 I’d say ‘If he is to meet her, she will be happy’ would be better than ‘If he were to … .’ as suggested by Bev because it ‘collocates’ in tense with Type I.

7

It may collocate - but it also changes the meaning, so it is not a suitable substitute.

8

Don’t mix up Type I with Type II and misguide/confuse others. There IS difference between the two.

9

That is not the point. There IS a difference in meaning between the original sentence and your recast. THAT is more confusing than anything else.

10

There IS a clear grammatical difference between the two types of conditional sentences (I & II).

11

There IS a clear difference in MEANING between
If he is to meet her
and
If he should meet her

You CANNOT substitute ‘is to’ for ‘should’ in that phrase without changing the meaning. You CAN substitute ‘were to’, as I indicated:
If he were to meet her, she would be happy.

12

That there IS a very clear grammatical difference between the two types of conditional sentences (I & II) is what I want to emphasize. I hope your knowledge of grammar is not limited so much as to disagree with me. LUSH!

13

I have never argued that there isn’t a grammatical difference.
This is the point I was arguing about:

It is NOT better because it changes the meaning entirely.