推 zofloya:先謝謝你保貴的時間跟耐心，有幾點要請教你 01/10 23:16
→ zofloya:1 作者提到a tentative P-clause may"sometimes" combine 01/10 23:18
→ zofloya:factual Q-clause，instead of "rarely"意思是不是其實也 01/10 23:19
→ zofloya:不很那麼罕見，只要說話者有特別強調的語義就可以用? 01/10 23:19
→ zofloya:而且也不會造成聽話者的混淆，聽話者是能分辨出的 01/10 23:21
→ zofloya:2 所以If he were to steal, he will be a thief.這句如果 01/10 23:22
→ zofloya:成立，語義上是不是強調他如果有偷(雖然機率非常小)，但他 01/10 23:23
→ zofloya:就是小偷的事實是不容質疑的，還是沒有這種解讀的空間? 01/10 23:24
→ zofloya:或是暗示說話者在客觀事實上知道if he的he不太可能偷東西 01/10 23:26
→ zofloya:但可能是之前對he有成見或夙怨，而故意用will的可能性? 01/10 23:27
→ l10nel:我不會否定這樣的解讀的，只是注意到，兩者的相對頻率仍大, 01/11 03:46
→ l10nel:在很多場合，如考試、工作、出版等，別人會根據其觀點判斷 01/11 03:52
→ l10nel:你的用法，你卻沒機會解釋。適時選擇"保守"。另外，千萬別 01/11 03:57
→ l10nel:將這種would/will的區別誤解成是時間上的現在/未來之分。 01/11 04:01
推 zofloya:收到。不好意思，還有一個問題就是，一樣都是表達， low 01/11 07:01
→ zofloya:probability in the future，If he should steal, he will 01/11 07:02
→ zofloya:be a thief這個句子的接受度是不是就比較廣?比較沒有爭議 01/11 07:03
→ zofloya:如果是的話，為什麼?習慣用法?還是were to是表達"不可能" 01/11 07:04
→ zofloya:should+V是表達可能，就說話者的角度 01/11 07:05
同一本書第 219 頁，說完 were to 便開始用 5 頁的篇幅介紹 should，不過最重要的是
第一段：
In both spoken and written British English, should can be used in the
P-clause of an open-P or tentative-P conditional to emphasize that the
possibility of actualization of the P-situation depends on chance or on some
other unpredictable factor. It renders the condition more tentative and is
nearly always interchangeable with ‘by any chance’.
第 220 頁其中兩例句分別使用 open/tentative：
(426) a. If this appliance should fail to work, we will replace it with
another (open condition) (='If, by any chance, this appliance fails to
work...')
c. If the changes caused hy the Greenhouse Effect should turn out to be as
serious as many people think, emissions of all Greenhouse gases would have to
be minimised. (COB-W) (tentative condition)
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, p 188 也說：
■ Conditional should
This expresses slightly greater doubt than the non-modal counterpart: compare
If you should experience any difficulty, please let me know.
with
If you experience any difficulty,..
This is why it cannot be used when there is no element of doubt at all, as in
If you’re my father, why don’t you help me?
and the like. It is usually found in open conditionals, but the remote
construction is also possible: compare
If there should be any opposition, they will/would not go ahead with the plan
(where 'will' indicates open, 'would' remote).
所以看法一致，should + will/would 都可以（有些書甚至傾向告訴你只該用 will）。
可能性由高至低：
if you experience any difficult （開放的可能）>
if you should experience...（多了一點遲疑、保留：by any chance,「要是」） >>
if you experienced... （可能性很小，但仍有可能） >=
if you were to experience ... （可能性再稍小一點，或語氣更委婉，但仍有可能！）
試圖解釋 should 可能性比 were to 高：
should 只是個 modal auxiliary，這種用在 conditional 的 should 屬於 low degree
of modality，只在基本的 if you experience 語義上多加了一點遲疑保留，故可能性較
高，接近 if you experience，因此搭配 will 不成問題；它本身的形式也不是像 were
to 屬於 subjunctive （儘管舊一點的看法如 Fowler 把 should 稱為 subjunctive)，
通常帶有可能性很小、虛擬、假設/不真實世界這類含義。
※ 編輯: l10nel 來自: 76.198.133.1 (01/11 18:03)
推 hopeliu:請教l大所以原問題counterfactual 建議選(d)were to搭配 01/12 02:29
→ hopeliu:would？ 01/12 02:30
→ zofloya:thanks a lot 01/12 06:00
→ l10nel:to h:當然建議選(d)would,何況是考試,這兩篇內容提供理由。 01/12 06:08
→ l10nel:但：were to不是counterfactual,指未來,仍有發生的可能,用 01/12 06:10
→ l10nel:remote/tentative/hypothetical稱之都好過counterfactual 01/12 06:12
推 TouchAgain:l大這兩篇都解釋得很清楚了吧 這不是完全不可能發生的 01/14 19:55
→ TouchAgain:情況 怎麼還在一直堅持counterfactual? 01/14 19:57
→ hopeliu:謝謝l大解惑 01/14 20:41
→ hopeliu:to TouchAgain:我只是問考試時怎麼選較好 若你眼睛或腦有 01/14 21:15
→ hopeliu:問題 請去就醫 01/14 21:16