[Lingtyp] IF and WHEN in the future

[Juergen Bohnemeyer]

Dear Sergey — The difference between temporal clauses and conditional clauses is that the former, but not the latter, carry a presupposition to the effect of realization of the described state of affairs. So for example, (i), but not not (ii), presupposes realization of the trip to Buffalo.

(i) When I go to Buffalo, I’ll give you a ride.
(ii) If I go to Buffalo, I’ll give you a ride.

Now, it’s philosophically murky as to what it means for the realization of a future event to be presupposed. Somehow this seems to translate to the speaker presenting the trip as a plan the realization of which is not in doubt. 

Note that this contrast isn’t restricted to the future:

(iii) When I went to Buffalo, I gave you a ride.
(iv) If I went to Buffalo, I gave you a ride. 

The question is of course what’s the point of a past conditional? Apparently, the most likely interpretation is an epistemic one: the speaker is presenting the reality of the trip as uncertain. In contrast, (iii) presupposes that the trip happened.

On to German!

(v) Wenn ich nach Buffalo fahre, nehm ich Dich mit. ‘When(colloquially: /if) I go to Buffalo, I’ll give you a ride.’
(vi) Falls ich nach Buffalo fahre, nehm ich Dich mit. 'If I go to Buffalo, I’ll give you a ride.’

The two readings can be distinguished, but to my intuition, (vi) is much more likely to occur in written registers than in colloquial ones. In colloquial registers — and most likely in those — (v) can be used both with and without the presupposition. 

Another relevant difference between the two languages is that _wenn_ is again mostly only colloquially used with past time reference, but is replaced by _als_ in more formal registers. I believe Dutch has the same contrast: _wanneer_ means ‘when’ with future time and generic reference, _toen_ means ‘when’ with past time reference. 

HTH! — Juergen

> On Jun 11, 2022, at 10:59 AM, Sergey Loesov <sergeloesov at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> In Babylonian Akkadian corpora of the 1st millennium BC the conjununction kī is claimed to mean both ‘if’ and ‘when’ in the future-time clauses. Some people believe that clause-initial kī is ‘if’, while kī as a preverb is ‘when’. The evidence does not always confirm this claim. One immediately thinks about the German wenn, which is assumed to say both ‘if’ and ‘when’ in the future. What shall we make of it? Is it possible that language does not oppose a future condition and a future temporal clause? If yes, how come?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Sergey    
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

-- 
Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
Professor, Department of Linguistics
University at Buffalo 

Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260 
Phone: (716) 645 0127 
Fax: (716) 645 3825
Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu
Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/ 

Office hours Tu/Th 2:30-3:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh) 

There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In 
(Leonard Cohen)