If King Arthur Had Revised His Grammar:

The Curious Case of English Conditionals

Click here to listen to the article

Author’s Note

I have always believed that language is not merely a system of rules, structures and vocabulary. It is a living entity. It has moods and tempers, habits and quirks, elegance and stubbornness, strengths and weaknesses, virtues and vices. It carries history in its bones and emotion in its breath. It evolves, rebels, adapts and occasionally refuses to behave. In short, language is profoundly human.

To learn a language, particularly English, one must therefore learn more than grammar. English is inseparable from the lives, landscapes and legends that shaped it. Its idioms echo taverns and battlefields, its metaphors rise from forests and seas, its rhythms carry the music of Shakespeare and the whispers of forgotten stones. Its heroes are sometimes real, sometimes imagined, yet all leave fingerprints upon the tongue.

This article was written with the hope that grammar might be approached not as a mechanical exercise but as a narrative experience. If we treat language as alive, we listen to it, negotiate with it and eventually befriend it. Only then does learning cease to be memorisation and become understanding.

Shams Bhatti

There are two things in Britain that nobody ever fully predicts: the weather and the English language. Both change without warning, both inspire mild anxiety, and both involve a generous quantity of if. If it rains, we complain. If it does not rain, we worry that it might later. In this respect, English conditionals are simply grammatical reflections of British daily life — statements balanced delicately between reality and imagination.

To make sense of these elusive structures, we shall turn to British legends. After all, legends too live somewhere between fact and fiction. And if grammar feels mysterious, at least we have respectable company.

The Zero Conditional: Eternal Truths and Ancient Stones

Let us begin with what never changes.

The zero conditional expresses general truths, habits and natural laws.

Form: If + present, present.

Enter Stonehenge, the ancient circle of standing stones whose purpose nobody can quite agree upon. It has stood for thousands of years, inspiring theories, postcards and mild confusion.

• If stones stand in a field for centuries, tourists arrive.

• If ivy grows unchecked, walls disappear beneath it.

• If the sun rises, someone in Britain comments that it is “surprisingly warm for the time of year”.

These are eternal truths. Predictable. Reliable. Comforting. Much like the zero conditional.

And much like Stonehenge, nobody really knows who invented it, yet we all accept that it exists and feel quietly proud of it.

The First Conditional: Sensible Predictions

Next, we enter the realm of realistic possibility.

The first conditional expresses likely future outcomes.

Form: If + present, will + verb.

Here we meet Robin Hood, the forest outlaw who famously redistributed wealth from greedy officials — a detail that immediately clarifies his moral position.

• If the Sheriff raises taxes again, Robin Hood will appear.

• If the guards are careless, the gold will change ownership.

• If injustice grows, trouble follows.

These are not fantasies. They are logical cause and effect. Sensible predictions. Even outlaws, it seems, follow grammatical rules better than some English learners.

The first conditional reassures us that actions have consequences. It is the grammar of common sense and mild warning.

The Second Conditional: Dreams of Camelot

Now we step into imagination.

The second conditional expresses unreal or hypothetical situations in the present.

Form: If + past, would + verb.

Enter King Arthur, the legendary British king said to have ruled a noble court called Camelot — a perfect kingdom that exists far more convincingly in stories than in history.

• If Arthur ruled today, politicians would behave honourably.

• If we sat at a round table, nobody would interrupt.

• If Merlin advised us, we would make wise decisions.

Would we really? Possibly not. But the second conditional is not concerned with evidence. It deals in wishes, ideals and polite self-delusion. It is the grammar of “in a perfect world”, a phrase frequently spoken by people who have just watched the evening news.

The Third Conditional: Regret and Lost Battles

Finally, we arrive at reflection.

The third conditional expresses unreal situations in the past.

Form: If + past perfect, would have + past participle.

Here stands Queen Boudicca, the historical warrior queen who led a rebellion against Roman rule. Brave, determined and ultimately defeated.

• If Boudicca had won, Britain would have a very different history.

• If Arthur had not fallen, Camelot would have endured.

• If we had revised yesterday, today’s test would have gone better.

The third conditional is the grammar of regret. Kings, queens and language learners share this habit equally: looking back and quietly murmuring if only.

Bringing Grammar Back to Reality

So what have we learned?

Zero conditionals describe truths that always happen. First conditionals predict what will probably happen. Second conditionals imagine what could happen. Third conditionals regret what might have happened.

In other words, conditionals mirror human thought itself — from certainty to possibility, from imagination to reflection. No wonder they feel complicated. They are the grammar of being human.

And if this still feels confusing, do not worry. If you practise regularly, it will become easier. If you avoid practice, it will not. That, at least, is a first conditional we can all trust.