FR: si + futur ou conditionnel ?

[agueda]

"Si l'operation reussit/reussira, le malade vivra; si non, il mourra."

I don't know which of 'reussit' or 'reussira' I should use, when I use the future tense in the second clause... could I use both?
Thanks!

Moderator note: Multiple threads have been merged to create this one.

 

[Blootone]

"réussit" is the only correct option here.

Don't forget the accent!

 

[lrosa]

Est-ce vrai que l'on ne doit (presque) jamais employer le conditionnel après le mot "si" (if), comme en anglais? Ou pourrait-ce être correct, dans un certain contexte, de dire "Si je serais plus riche...", etc... Je sais qu'en anglais, on dit plutôt "If I were" que "If I would be..."

Merci d'avance!

 

[FRENFR]

Si j'etais riche.. not si je serais riche..

After si, if it's not the imperfect, it's the present (!). Si tu as faim, tu devrais manger (you should eat). In the past, to say "If you were hungry, why didn't you eat", you would use the imperfect: si tu avais faim, ...?

If I were is a rare example of the subjunctive in English; Si je sois riche, in French. I think you would be shot if they heard this! Subjunctive is French is after 'que', if ever it is to be used. Si je fusse? Ok, ok, not the imperfect subjunctive.

You know, on some TV Game Shows in France, they have questions about conjugating a verb into a complicated subjunctive mood, and normally they get it wrong!

 

[Rallino]

Si on n'avait fait aucune guerre, on aurait vécu dans une prospérité.

Est-ce que ça choque les francophones si je dis cette phrase comme:

On eusse vécu dans une prospérité, ne fît-on aucune guerre. ?

Car je me souviens d'un emploie: Si + subj. imparfait, mais je ne suis pas sûr

 

[tilt]

Present is possible after si, indeed, but imperfect is much more common, and not only in past sentences!
In fact, I'd say imperfect can be considered as the general case after si:
Si j'étais plus riche, je voyagerais.
Si j'avais moins faim, je ne mangerais pas autant.
Si j'avais d'autres idées, je donnerais plus d'exemples.

Yet, it's possible to come across conditional after si, but in very specific cases only.
When two si works together in the sentence, for example: Si j'étais riche, je me demande si je serais heureux.

 

[lrosa]

Yet, it's possible to come across conditional after si, but in very specific cases only.
When two si works together in the sentence, for example: Si j'étais riche, je me demande si je serais heureux.

Same in English... "If I were rich, I wonder if I would be happy". Thanks for that example.

So I'm wondering now... Is French like in English in that it's perhaps more technically correct to use Si + imperfect subjunctive, when you want to express something conditional - "If I were rich... I would..."? But that in French, like in English, this rule is (perhaps more) often ignored, leading people to say "Si j'étais" - "If I was (Many English speakers do say this, ignoring the subjunctive)" - instead of "Si je fusse", which would sound ridiculous?

In this thread I'm only concerned about the use of tense/mood after the word "si" when it carries a strictly conditional meaning.

Oh, and it appears that I was wrong to say that the conditional was my only interest, because I'm wondering if French is the same as English in that "Si tu avais faim..." can mean "If you were hungry" both in the sense of "If you were hungry, why didn't you eat?" (not really conditional) and "If you were hungry, would you eat?" (conditional). In English this subtlety can be expressed with the pronouns I and he/she/it, because of the fact that they would change from "If I/he/she/it was (hungry, why didn't he eat?)" to "If I/he/she/it were (hungry, I'd eat)", depending on the context:

If you were hungry, why didn't you eat? - "Si tu avais faim, pourquoi n'as tu pas mangé?"
If you were hungry, would you eat? - "Mangerais-tu si tu avais faim?"

Are these 2 translations correct? Many thanks!

 

[tilt]

Same in English... "If I were rich, I wonder if I would be happy". Thanks for that example.

So I'm wondering now... Is French like in English in that it's perhaps more technically correct to use Si + imperfect subjunctive, when you want to express something conditional - "If I were rich... I would..."? But that in French, like in English, this rule is (perhaps more) often ignored, leading people to say "Si j'étais" - "If I was (Many English speakers do say this, ignoring the subjunctive)" - instead of "Si je fusse", which would sound ridiculous?

I can't really how it was in the old days, but nowadays, no one would use a imperfect subjunctive, which does sound ridiculous, as you say.

If you were hungry, why didn't you eat? - "Si tu avais faim, pourquoi n'as tu pas mangé?"
If you were hungry, would you eat? - "Mangerais-tu si tu avais faim?"

Are these 2 translations correct? Many thanks!

Nonetheless they are correct, but they also are brilliant. They do perfectly render the meaning of both English sentences in French.
Note that the latter could also be said Si tu avais faim, mangerais-tu ? to make it clear that it's the tense of the second phrase which decides of the exact meaning of si, by setting the whole sentence in present or in past.

 

[laphroaig]

Hi!
I was always taught never to use the conditional tense after 'si' when it means if. Is there however any time when you could say 'si vous pourriez.....'?

 

[Donaldos]

Yes, you can use the conditional in indirect questions for instance :

Il se demandait si vous pourriez vivre sur une île déserte.

 

[jann]

I was always taught never to use the conditional tense after 'si' when it means if. Is there however any time when you could say 'si vous pourriez.....'?

Yes, you can use the conditional in indirect questions for instance :
Il se demandait si vous pourriez vivre sur une île déserte.

Translation: He was wondering if/whether you could live on a deserted island.

Donaldos, the si in your example does not mean "if"! The si in indirect questions is a synonym for "whether." Indeed, we may certainly use the conditional in such sentences... so the rule that Laphroaig learned (which only applies to hypothetical or cause/effect if-then sentences) is not contradicted.

I suspect Laphroaig's question was more about cases where we say "if you could" to be polite in English, e.g., "If you could pick him up at the airport, that would be great!" We so habitually think of "could" as being a conditional that we might be tempted to say Si vous pourriez in French. But actually, this English "could" isn't a conditional. It's the past tense conjugation of "can" (today I can, yesterday I could)... and so this English sentence is just using the standard if-then tense pattern the same as French does.

If you could (past) pick him up at the airport, that would be (conditional) great!
Si vous pouviez (imparfait) le chercher à l'aéroport, ce serait (conditionnel) vraiment bien.

Obviously the if/si in this sentence is not a synonym for "whether"... and so the standard tense sequencing rules apply.

 

[Donaldos]

Donaldos, the si in your example does not mean "if"! The si in indirect questions is a synonym for "whether."

That was actually my point...

 

[laphroaig]

Thank you both very much. I was thinking of examples like the following:
1. I would be grateful if you could send me......
2. I was wondering if you could send me.....
Am I therefore right in thinking that ' si vous pouvez/pouviez m'envoyer' would be used in 1 where as ' si vous pourriez m'envoyer' would be used in 2?

 

[jann]

Am I therefore right in thinking that ' si vous pouvez/pouviez m'envoyer' would be used in 1 where as ' si vous pourriez m'envoyer' would be used in 2?

Yes.

You can't use present tense pouvez for #1... unless you want to say "I will be grateful if you can send me..." For the version of the sentence that you wrote with "would" and "could," you need to pair the conditional with the imperfect.

 

[wster]

From Racine's Phaedre:

Ou si tu le crois indigne de tes coups,
Si ta haine m'envie un supplice si doux,
Ou si d'un sang trop vil ta main serait trempée,
Au défaut de ton bras prête moi ton épée.

Here we have a condtionnel verb in a si clause and even Grevisse (8th edition) seems to have a bit of difficulty bringing cases like these under clear rules. He says:

...on a parfois après si un futur ou un conditionnel, mais qui ne sont pas dans sa dépendence directe: la supposition porte sur un verbe sous-jacent (s'il est vrais que, si on admet que...

This seems like a stretch to me. In English, we might use a conditional "would" in a sentence like this simply to mark eventuality. I'm having trouble understanding why French wouldn't work the same way. So my question is this: do native French speakers really feel the pull of an implicit "s'il est vrais que" in sentences like this?

Thanks in advance

 

[VanOo]

There is a double condition here.

Si tu venais à te battre avec moi (A) et si tu considère ce sang comme vil (B) = si d'un sang trop vil ta main serait trempée

Note que la condition (A) est mise en doute:
Si tu te bats avec moi, ta main sera trempée
Si tu te battais avec moi (mais j'en doute), ta main serait trempée.

Ais-je répondu à la question ?

 

[Maître Capello]

Il y a en fait une ellipse et il faut comprendre : si [en me frappant tu penses que] ta main serait trempée d'un sang trop vil.

 

[wster]

Here's another example he gives with the futur instead of the conditionnel:

Fais ce que tu veux si tu pourras le supporter indéfiniment.-P.Valery

Again, for Grevisse, there is an implicit s'il est vrais que.

There is a whole school of thought in modern semantics according to which "it is true that P" adds nothing to "P". So it is a bit strange that Grevisse would spend a whole page giving examples turning on this in order to deal with unruly si clauses.

 

[Maître Capello]

In Racine's example it makes a lot of sense to use the conditional because there is a kind of double condition as suggested by VanOo. Besides, the present would be inappropriate because it wouldn't convey the right meaning.

Valéry's sentence is less convincing, but the future definitely “colors” the sentence in a way the present never could.

I'm afraid there is no clear-cut answer to your question. I would say that the future or conditional is sometimes possible in si clauses without the need to resort to convoluted explanations. Those tenses should however be used sparingly and appropriately. This is not really different from the English where would is also usually incorrect in if clauses…

 

[wster]

I'll give one more example to give an idea of how he sees things:

Elle attendait encore un peu pour s'assurer si vraiment ces intentions seraient solides.-E. Fromentin

Grevisse says that in all of these, the Racine, the Valery, and the Fromentin, the si has "aucune valor conditionnel". But in the Racine and the Valery, there is "un verbe sous-jacent" like "il est vrais que".

 

[Marie3933]

Elle attendait encore un peu pour s'assurer si vraiment ces intentions seraient solides.-E. Fromentin.

Dans cette phrase, il ne s’agit pas d’une hypothèse avec si mais d’une interrogation indirecte (s’assurer si n’est pas une construction fréquente).
Cf. « Je me demande s’il fera beau demain ». S’il fera beau demain n’est pas une condition mais une interrogation indirecte.

 

[Nem'o]

Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec tout ce qui a été dit plus haut, mais j'ai tout de même une question: ne pensez-vous pas, tout de même, que ce genre de tournure de phrase reste rare et très littéraire?
Il me semble que ces tournures là sont surtout utilisées pour se donner un style, plus que pour des raisons purement grammaticales.
Peut-être pas pour Racine, cela dit, qui est un auteur du 17ème (la langue utilisée, qu'elle soit parlée ou écrite, était donc totalement différente à tous les niveaux), mais pour les deux autres...?

Autre question: ne s'agit-il pas de tournures "vieillies"?
Il faut tout de même noter que les deux autres auteurs sont nés au 19ème, et encore une fois, la langue a beaucoup évoluée depuis.

Si je dis cela, c'est surtout pour tenter d'apporter un élément de réponse en plus à la question de base qui était: do native French speakers really feel the pull of an implicit "s'il est vrais que" in sentences like this?

Car tout le monde a apporté des explications grammaticales intéressantes et claires (il me semble), mais je pense qu'il faut noter que je n'emploierais personnellement jamais ces tournures grammaticales (à l'écrit comme à l'oral)... Et il me semble que c'est la même chose pour tout le monde.

 

[Marie3933]

Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec toi, Nem'o.

 

[Revron]

Hello,

I am trying to translate the sentence "It will be necessary to leave the hotel early if we are going to catch the train."

I originally thought that this would translate as <<Il sera nécessaire de quitter l'hôtel de bonne heure si nous allons attraper le train.>> However, I am having second thoughts because this involves a future tense in the subordinate clause of a 'si' clause.

Any help would be greatly appreciated,

Thanks,

Revron

 

[moustic]

Hello and welcome to the forum revron,

Do you mean "if we take the train" or "if we want to catch the train"?

Il sera nécessaire ... si nous prenons le train / si nous voulons prendre le train.

 

[geostan]

Welcome to the forum Revron!

You do not as a rule use a future tense in an if clause in French, but I would still phrase your if clause differently. Il sera nécessaire de quitter l'hôtel de bonne heure si nous ne voulons pas manquer le train. I wouldn't use attraper in reference to a train.

 

[Adrien92]

You can't use "attraper" for a train but "rater" or "manquer" are better. What geostan said is correct.

 

[Lacuzon]

Si nous voulons attraper le train ne me dérange pas du tout.

 

[Adrien92]

C'est compréhensible mais ce n'est pas l'expression la plus courante.

 

[Revron]

Dear all,

Thank you very much for your help so far!

It seems like people are giving different/conflicting answers (maybe it is a hard question) so I should try to clarify:

My question is really about whether it is possible to use two futures (<<Il sera nécessaire... si nous allons attraper>>) in a 'si' construction. This seems to be the only option for literally translating from the English text which is indeed "It will be necessary to leave the hotel early if we are going to catch the train." However, I have been taught that the 'si' clause in a 'si' construction can never contain a future or conditional and can only consist of (Present+Future; Imperfect+Conditional; Pluperfect+Conditional Perfect).

Thanks,

Revron

 

[geostan]

It's true that aller + infinbitive is a kind of future, but the rule really applies to the true future tense. Nevertheless, I think I would use devoir or vouloir rather than aller in your sentence.

 

[janpol]

Nous devrons quitter l'hôtel de bonne heure si nous avons un train à prendre.

J'ai entendu le futur dans une hypothétique (concessive ?) employé par un journaliste de télévision : "Si, durant le prochain week-end, le Président sera à Berlin, le Premier Ministre, quant à lui, sera à Toulouse".

 

[geostan]

Reste à savoir si c'est correct.

 

[moustic]

J'ai entendu le futur dans une hypothétique (concessive ?) employé par un journaliste de télévision : "Si, durant le prochain week-end, le Président sera à Berlin, le Premier Ministre, quant à lui, sera à Toulouse".

I don't understand this as a hypothetical sentence, but a straight statement of fact:
The President will be in Berlin whereas the Prime Minister will be in Toulouse.

 

[Gooische Vrouwen]

Hi,

I just read "Si nous n'habitons pas dans une ville, nous nous disperserons dans le pays."

Shouldn't it have been "Si nous n'habiterons pas dans une ville, nous nous disperserons dans le pays." since the people are talking about where to live? They are talking about what might happen in the future if they choose not to live in the same city. Therefore, both verbs should be in the future, not just "nous disperserons".

Thanks

 

[rolmich]

Hi GV,
The future tense is never used after 'si'. The sentence is correct.
But : Nous n'habiterons pas dans une ville, car nous aurons été dispersés dans le pays. (futur antérieur)

 

[olivier68]

Hi GV,

Rolmich is rather right: the future tense is NEVER used after "si" in direct style.

In your case, this is because the condition introduced by "si" is considered as realized.

 

[Maître Capello]

As a matter of fact, Rolmich is not entirely correct: it is possible to use the future after si in indirect questions, e.g., Je me demande si vous ne serez pas déçus. That being said, the future is indeed usually inappropriate in conditional si clauses.

 

[marget]

My question concerns the sequence of tenses. Is it possible to use an imperative in the main clause and the future in the subordinate clause as in "N'achète pas ces chaussures (baskets) blanches si tu les saliras/ si tu finiras par les salir"?

Merci d'avance

 

[olivier68]

No, the "si clause" can not be used here.
"N'achète pas ces chaussures (baskets) blanches : tu les saliras / tu finiras par les salir"

 

[marget]

Thank you so much. That's what I thought.

 

[ForeverHis]

"N'achète pas ces chaussures (baskets) blanches si tu les saliras/ si tu finiras par les salir"?

Are you trying to say "Don't buy those white shoes if you're going to get them dirty"? If that's what you mean then I don't think Olivier's suggestion is quite the same.

"N'achète pas ces chaussures (baskets) blanches : tu les saliras / tu finiras par les salir"

 

[Maître Capello]

In principle, the verb in si clauses cannot be in the future. You may, however, say something like:

N'achète pas ces chaussures blanches si tu vas les salir.
N'achète pas ces chaussures blanches si tu finis par les salir.
N'achète pas ces chaussures blanches si tu dois les salir.

 

[Kitano]

Cela dépend du contexte également. On dirait plutôt "ne mets pas tes chaussures neuves si tu vas dans la boue"
En langage parlé / populaire, on trouvera aussi "... si c'est pour les salir"