"If S were to" vs. "If S should"

English as a Second Language English Vocabulary, Grammar and Idioms
1

Hello!

  1. If you should get one million dollars, what would you do?
  2. If you were to get one million dollars, what would you do?

Is there any difference between the two above?
If any, what’s the difference, including their nuance.

Thanks in advance!

1 Like
2

.
No difference. ‘Should’ + infinitive is an alternative to subjunctive ‘were’ and is used more in BrE, I believe.
.

2 Likes
3
  1. If you should get one million dollars, what would you do?
  2. If you were to get one million dollars, what would you do?
  3. If you should get one million dollars, what will you do?
  4. If you were to get one million dollars, what will you do?
    I think that #3 is acceptable but that #4 is not acceptable. Am I right?
1 Like
4

.
I find neither #3 nor #4 acceptable as good written English.
.

2 Likes
5
  1. If you buy a car, it will cost you a lot of money. (It is entirely possible for you to buy a car.)
  2. If you should buy a car, it would/will cost you a lot of money. (It is unlikely or not particularly probable that you will buy a car.)
  3. If you were to buy (=bought) a car, it would cost you a lot of money. (It is impossible or less probable that you will buy a car.)
6

.
Why are you asking us if you are already set in your opinion, Sitifan? I am certainly not interested in wasting my time explaining to a brick wall.
.

1 Like
7

Mr. Micawber, I am very sorry that you feel offended. In my previous post, I quoted the rules from A Guide to Teaching Junior High School English, written by Dr. Ting-Chi Tang, a Taiwanese professor of English. Dr. Tang is not a native speaker of English. Perhaps his rules are old-fashioned or outdated.

1 Like
8

.
What is your point in quoting those rules, and why did you not state that point?
.

1 Like
9

I am a teacher of English in Taiwan.
In your reply to Rei’s question, I was very surprised to see that there is no difference between the following sentences.

  1. If you should get one million dollars, what would you do?
  2. If you were to get one million dollars, what would you do?

Have I been teaching my students wrong rules? In order to dispel my doubt, I post my question as follows:
If you should get one million dollars, what would you do?
2) If you were to get one million dollars, what would you do?
3) If you should get one million dollars, what will you do?
4) If you were to get one million dollars, what will you do?
I think that #3 is acceptable but that #4 is not acceptable. Am I right?

Your reply surprised me once again because it was different from Michael Swan’s Practical English Usage. (page 261, second edition; page 261, third edition)
In both editions and on the same page, Michael Swan says:
Would is not common in the main clause in [if…should] clause].
If she should be late, we’ll have to start without him.
(NOT* If she should be late, we’d have to start without him.)
So I quoted rules from Dr. Tang’s book to voice my doubt .

1 Like
10

.
Well, now at least I can see what you are trying to find out.

I suppose you are talking about section 261, not page 261. Part 2 of that section does not contain a sample sentence with should + will, at least in my 2nd ed. Its example reads: ‘If you should run into Peter, tell him….’ (imperative). That section is not discussing should/will vs were to / would; it is discussing the use of should, not would, in ‘if’-clauses of unlikely or improbable situations.

The next part of that same section (#3) independently discusses the structure ‘of…was/were to’, ‘another way’ [my bolding] ‘of talking about unreal or imaginary future events’.

I see nothing in all of section 261 that makes any comparison of the uses of ‘should’ and ‘were to’ or presents any difference in hypothetical meanings, such that the first would take ‘will’ while the second would take ‘would’. Hence, you should not read Swan’s glosses (‘unlikely or improbable’, ‘unreal or imaginary’) as set in contrast; they are merely different words being used synonymously. The probabilities are not that different, or not different at all, for native speakers.

Leech & Svartvik’s Communicative Grammar of English (sect 277) refers to both ‘Were to + infinitive’ (or ‘was to’ ) and ‘Should + infinitive’ as constructions expressing hypothetical future or tentative conditions. If it were to rain, the match would be postponed. If a crisis should arise, the government would have to take action.

By contemporary native speakers, these are viewed as alternative forms, and both are quite formal by today’s standards. Such a contrast, if it did exist (and it may yet for other posters here-- I represent only one English) would be out of date, as mixed conditionals are becoming more and more prevalent (at least in the spoken language). [Cf. the acceptance of informal ‘was to’ above.] In a word, there are many more useful points you could be teaching your students.
.

2 Likes
11

Hello, Mister Micawber. I just read your explanation and wondered about two things.

  1. By saying “mixed conditionals are becoming more and more prevalent,” do you mean that the rigid rules of “second conditional” and “third conditional” are sometimes not applied?
  2. I took a linguistics course in university, and there I learned that if there are two ways of saying one thing, there must be some difference, such as the level of formality, or where they are used, etc. In your opinion as a native English speaker, do you see any difference in such levels, or do you think one or the other is used less often, perhaps indicating it eventually dying out?
    I speak English as a foreign language, and I really feel the need to rely on rules when I use English, and eager to keep up with any changes; any insight by a native speaker is always helpful in settling my uneasy feelings. Thank you!
1 Like
12

  1. By saying “mixed conditionals are becoming more and more prevalent,” do you mean that the rigid rules of “second conditional” and “third conditional” are sometimes not applied?– Mixed conditionals are common: one clause may refer to the present, while the other refers to the past: If I had completed my high school education (Conditional III), I would not be a janitor today (Conditional II). Which rules are you concerned about?

  2. I took a linguistics course in university, and there I learned that if there are two ways of saying one thing, there must be some difference, such as the level of formality, or where they are used, etc. In your opinion as a native English speaker, do you see any difference in such levels, or do you think one or the other is used less often, perhaps indicating it eventually dying out?– There is no single answer to this. I can tell you that many native speakers notice no difference in two utterances that learners will worriedly discuss at length. Sometimes there is really no difference that I can perceive at all, sometimes there are trivial differences in register, and sometimes the differences are important. As to ‘dying out’: many forms are, and new forms are developing, but it is on an individual basis. I can make no overall prognostication.

I speak English as a foreign language, and I really feel the need to rely on rules when I use English, and eager to keep up with any changes; any insight by a native speaker is always helpful in settling my uneasy feelings. - Candidly, I suggest that you relax and worry less. Your English seems fine by any standard.

2 Likes
13

Thank you, Mr. Micawber.

  1. Mixed Conditional: I wondered that native speakers may have started to ignore the third conditional rule, since I’ve had an experience recently that the grammar used by a native English speaker was, by textbook standard, wrong. Thank you for your clarification.
  2. Difference in two expressions / perhaps one dying out? : I suppose it is difficult to speak for all people who speak the language–I would as well, for my own language. As I become more and more interested in English language, I notice myself investigating perhaps minute and not-so-important issues. Your final comment really reminded me that it’s more about communication. Thank you!
1 Like
14

I prefer #3 to #1. (but I am a learner) Thanks

1 Like
15

I’m afraid it is not a question of personal preference, E2e4.
AFAIK, they are hypothetical and only would/could/should fits.

1 Like
16

In my 2nd edition, part 2 of section 261 does contain a sample sentence with should + will.
“Would is not common in the main clause in these structures.
If she should be late, we’ll have to start without him.
(NOT …, we’d have to start without him.)”

2 Likes
17

I note Swan does not mention if…should in the 4th edition (2016). He replaces it with if…happen to .
He also says that if…should is now unusual in English (e.g. If you should run into Daniel ), which I find surprising (perhaps because of my age).

The 3rd edition was published in 2005, which makes his objection to if you should interesting, to say the least.

2 Likes