Look at these examples to see how zero, first and second conditionals are used.
If you freeze water, it becomes solid.
If it rains tomorrow, I'll take the car.
If I lived closer to the cinema, I would go more often.
Try this exercise to test your grammar.
- Grammar test 1
Read the explanation to learn more.
Grammar explanation
Conditionals describe the result of a certain condition. The if clause tells you the condition (If you study hard) and the main clause tells you the result (you will pass your exams). The order of the clauses does not change the meaning.
If you study hard, you will pass your exams.
You will pass your exams if you study hard.
Conditional sentences are often divided into different types.
Zero conditional
We use the zero conditional to talk about things that are generally true, especially for laws and rules.
If I drink too much coffee, I can't sleep at night.
Ice melts if you heat it.
When the sun goes down, it gets dark.
The structure is: if/when + present simple >> present simple.
First conditional
We use the first conditional when we talk about future situations we believe are real or possible.
If it doesn't rain tomorrow, we'll go to the beach.
Arsenal will be top of the league if they win.
When I finish work, I'll call you.
In first conditional sentences, the structure is usually: if/when + present simple >> will + infinitive.
It is also common to use this structure with unless, as long as, as soon as or in case instead of if.
I'll leave as soon as the babysitter arrives.
I don't want to stay in London unless I get a well-paid job.
I'll give you a key in case I'm not at home.
You can go to the party, as long as you're back by midnight.
Second conditional
The second conditional is used to imagine present or future situations that are impossible or unlikely in reality.
If we had a garden, we could have a cat.
If I won a lot of money, I'd buy a big house in the country.
I wouldn't worry if I were you.
The structure is usually: if + past simple >> + would + infinitive.
When if is followed by the verb be, it is grammatically correct to say if I were, if he were, if she were and if it were. However, it is also common to hear these structures with was, especially in the he/she form.
If I were you, I wouldn't mention it.
If she was prime minister, she would invest more money in schools.
He would travel more if he was younger.
Do this exercise to test your grammar again.
- Grammar test 2
Hello everyday-nato,
The forms here are actually present subjunctive and past subjuntive. These are not the same as present and past tense.
We use the subjunctive to describe things that are not true but that we would like to be true or hope can be true (present subjunctive), and things which are not true and which we acknowledge may not become true (past subjunctive). The names (present and past) are misleading and do not refer to time but to form.
The present subjunctive form is the same as the base form of the verb; it does not change in the third person.
The past subjunctive form is the same as the past simple.
In your examples, you could use either form. The present subjunctive suggests that the speaker expects the other person to comply; the past subjunctive implicitly acknowledges that they may not, making it a more polite form as it is more tentative.
You can read more about the Englishs subjunctive here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive#Use_of_the_present_subjunctive
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Najmiii3579,
These sentences have slightly different meanings. Sentence 1 has the meaning of 'being willing to act', because it includes would. Sentence 2 is just about the action – whether the countries act or don't act. It doesn't say anything about their willingness.
For your second question, yes! You could use will instead of would. There's a slight difference in how the action is presented. If you use will, it's a real and possible consequence. If you use would, it frames the action (that would be all to the good) as hypothetical or imagined (not a real one).
Does that make sense?
Best wishes,
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Najmiii3579,
Even though conditionals are usually taught as Type 1/2/3 structures, in real life speakers often mix these structures, especially in speaking. Was this sentence taken from real life language usage?
Best wishes,
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello AkiraTa05,
Yes, you could say 'must' instead of 'will' there. 'must' can be used in this way to say we're pretty sure about something.
There are often exceptions to such rules, so I'm afraid I'm not willing to make a statement about a rule here. But in general I can think of situations in which 'might' and 'could' are possible. I can't think of one where 'would' would be correct, but perhaps in some very specific context it would work. 'would' is used quite often in second and mixed conditional structures.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello again AkiraTa05,
I wouldn't say that 'might' expresses less certainty than 'may'; as I understand it, they express the same degree of certainty or uncertainty. 'might' and 'could' are used more often in speech than in writing, though this is not to say that people don't use 'may' when they speak or 'might' when the write.
In most cases, you could safely use any of the three forms to express this idea. By the way, you find detailed explanations of the main uses of these and the other modal verbs in the Modal verbs section of our English grammar.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team