if and whether

[Daniel]

There's a lexical ambiguity between these words much of the time. Or, more specifically, whether seems to be used in a subset of cases where if would be used. And the prescriptive perspective is that if should not be used in the cases where whether can be used. So to some extent we seem to have a straightforward ambiguity between them (rather than a more complicated overlap):

I don't know whether that's the right answer.
vs.
I'll tell you if you give me $5!

However, I think I just came across a case (in my own writing, an email, actually) that blurs this distinction. It only works with "if", but it has a meaning that is closer to the "whether" meaning:

I'll tell you if I'm ever in town.

Technically this could have a reading where I'll tell you regardless, but in some cases that's not the intent, as with "ever" here. That doesn't really work with "whether":

I'll tell you whether I'm ever in town.

Awkward at best, and not the same meaning.

And it's not purely conditional either.

So is this an amalgam? Any thoughts?

[MalFet]

Hmm...I'm not sure I'm following. In the examples you've given here, "if" seems like a fairly straight forward conditional conjunction, and "whether" seems like a similarly straight forward conjunction for alternate possibilities. By those semantics, it makes sense that both work in some cases but not in others, no?

[Daniel]

In the straight-forward cases, yes. But what about the one where the if-clause is both the condition and the argument?

I'll let you know if I'm ever in town.
=If I am ever in town, I will let you know that I am there.
≠If I am ever in town, I will let you know [something else]
≠I will let you know whether I am ever in town.

[MalFet]

You understand "if I am ever in town" to be an argument of the verb phrase "let you know"? Do you have the same intuition about "I'll punch you if I'm ever in town"?

The "I will let you know whether I am ever in town" is a perfectly fine sentence; it only seems weird because it's a weird situation. Between the two habitual possibilities of you sometimes being in town and never being in town, why would you let somebody know in the future? "I will let you know whether I need your help", in contrast, seems perfectly fine because it's a statement about two possibilities that have yet to unfold.

[Daniel]

Yes, as an argument, just as if it were "whether" but only on the positive condition, not the negative one.

"I will let you know whether I need your help", in contrast, seems perfectly fine because it's a statement about two possibilities that have yet to unfold.

Right. But that means you'll let them know either way. With "if" you (on one reading) might only let them know if you do need help:

I will let you know if I need your help. If you don't hear from me that means I didn't need your help after all!

[MalFet]

Yes, as an argument, just as if it were "whether" but only on the positive condition, not the negative one.

I'm really surprised by that intuition. Wouldn't that make a sentence like "I will tell you the password if I am ever in town" tritransitive? An analysis that treats these as two clauses joined at a higher level just seems a heck of a lot simpler to me.

"I will let you know whether I need your help", in contrast, seems perfectly fine because it's a statement about two possibilities that have yet to unfold.

Right. But that means you'll let them know either way. With "if" you (on one reading) might only let them know if you do need help:

I will let you know if I need your help. If you don't hear from me that means I didn't need your help after all!

Right...that's what makes it a conditional. "Whether" doesn't mark a conditional. Given that difference, we'd expect the two words to have substantially different distributions.

Edit: type-os

[Daniel]

Wouldn't that make a sentence like "I will tell you the password if I am ever in town" tritransitive?

No, because that's overtly marked as "the password". That sentence doesn't mean that I will both inform you when I'm in town and tell you the password. It just refers to the password.

An analysis that treats these as two clauses joined at a higher level just seems a heck of a lot simpler to me.

A simpler analysis, sure, but it doesn't match the empirical data (at least as far as I read the sentences). Basically it is joined higher, but it also is the same as the object of the verb. So maybe this is by some kind of agreement?

Right...that's what makes it a conditional. "Whether" doesn't mark a conditional. Given that difference, we'd expect the two words to have substantially different distributions.

Oh? I don't see that at all. Just consider these average normal "whether" sentences where "if" can be identically substituted:
Please tell me if you understand!
Do you know if he is here?
Let's determine if this is grammatical.
But

[MalFet]

Wouldn't that make a sentence like "I will tell you the password if I am ever in town" tritransitive?

No, because that's overtly marked as "the password". That sentence doesn't mean that I will both inform you when I'm in town and tell you the password. It just refers to the password.

Right, that's my point. Do you really understand the sentence "I'll tell you if I'm ever in town." to mean that, should you ever be in town, you will answer for me the question of if you are ever in town? I find that completely unintuitive. To me, the sentence is unambiguously conditional, roughly equivalent to "If I am ever in town, I will tell you [that I am there]."

[freknu]

Malfet has already said it, but just to reiterate:

I'll tell you if I'm ever in town → [if I'm ever in town] [I'll tell you]

Code: [Select]

if(in_town(i)) {
    tell(you);
}

I'll tell you whether I'm ever in town → [whether I'm ever in town (or not)] [I'll tell you]

Code: [Select]

switch(in_town(i)) {
    case yes:
        tell(you);
        break;
    default:
        tell(you);
        break;
}


[Daniel]

Indeed.

To me, the sentence is unambiguously conditional, roughly equivalent to "If I am ever in town, I will tell you [that I am there]."

And where is that [that I am there] part from?
It is systematically equivalent to a whether clause of the same form.

[freknu]

To me, the sentence is unambiguously conditional, roughly equivalent to "If I am ever in town, I will tell you [that I am there]."

And where is that [that I am there] part from?

Just one possible interpretation:

I'll tell you whether I'm (ever) in town [or not]

Am I in town? Yes? Tell you.
Am I in town? No? Don't tell you.

cf. whether I'm ever (in the potential case)
cf. whenever I'm (each and every time)

[Daniel]

Then the if/whether clause IS acting as an argument of tell, no?


What about this sentence?
I don't mind if you don't like what I cooked.
It's conditional in a sense, but it also seems to serve as a clausal complement.

[freknu]

Yes, so? That's just one possible meaning... I'm getting confused :/

What about this sentence?
I don't mind if you don't like what I cooked.
It's conditional in a sense, but it also seems to serve as a clausal complement.

Hm... what?

I guess I need to reread this thread to get my head straight...

[Daniel]

My point is that in some cases "if" seems to be both conditional and introducing a complement clause.

[freknu]

Doesn't whether do the same?

I'll tell you if I'm ever in town [that I'm in town].
I'll tell you whether I'm ever in town [that I'm in town].