I've read this topic about if-clause and it seems sanely to ask what is the point of if-clause + present continuous. I interest in the following case:

When they are speaking, they do something.


If they are speaking, they do something.

Does the latter sentence make a sense at all? If it is true, what are the differences between these sentences?

  • 1
    I don't understand what you are asking. The present continuous construction doesn't 'mean' anything different in a when clause or an if clause than it does anywhere else: it marks the action as continuous through the time spoken of. – StoneyB on hiatus Jun 30 '14 at 18:45
  • The lack of logical causation between speaking and doing something makes these sentences a bit nonsensical; they seem perfectly fine to me, they just don't really mean anything. – Pockets Jun 30 '14 at 23:01

There's no real semantic difference that an everyday speaker would pick up on.

Both sentences make sense, but because you've used the pro-verb do in them, it will probably sound weird to most readers.

When I open my mouth, a fool starts to speak
If I open my mouth, a fool starts to speak

I'm sure that a semantician can do a better job of eliciting differences, but for the purposes of conversation, you can consider these equivalent and sensical.

The difference becomes clearer if you use then as a conjunction, since it becomes a temporal and logical relationship, respectively. However that's a tangent to your question.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.