Structural-semantic peculiarities of conditional sentences in english and uzbek

If we were soldiers, we wouldn't have done it like that.
Features of English punctuation: if the subordinate clause (condition) is before the main one, then a comma is placed between them, but if the main clause precedes the subordinate clause, then a comma is not needed.
If the sea is stormy, the waves are high.
They can also be used for logical deductions about particular circumstances (which can be in various mixtures of past, present, and future):
If it's raining here now, then it was raining on the West Coast this morning.
If it's raining now, then your laundry is getting wet.
If it's raining now, there will be mushrooms to be picked next week.
If he locked the door, then Kitty is trapped inside.
A predictive conditional sentence concerns a situation dependent on a hypothetical (but entirely possible) future event. The consequence is normally also a statement about the future, although it may also be a consequent statement about present or past time (or a question or order).
If I become President, I'll lower taxes.
If it rains this afternoon, everybody will stay home.
If it rains this afternoon, then yesterday's weather forecast was wrong.
If it rains this afternoon, your garden party is doomed.
What will you do if he invites you?
If you see them, shoot!
One of the most discussed distinctions among conditionals is that between indicative and counterfactual conditionals:
Indicative: If it is raining in New York, then Mary is at home.
Counterfactual: If it was raining in New York, then Mary would be at home.
These examples differ in both form and meaning. The indicative example uses the present tense form "is" in both its antecedent and consequent, while the counterfactual example uses the past tense form "was" in the antecedent and the modal "would" in the consequent. The counterfactual example conveys that the speaker thinks it isn't raining in New York, while the indicative example suggests that the speaker is agnostic about that possibility.
Linguists and philosophers of language sometimes avoid the term counterfactuals because not all examples express counterfactual meanings. For instance, the "Anderson Case" has the characteristic grammatical form of a counterfactual conditional, but does not convey that its antecedent is false or unlikely.
Anderson Case: If the patient had taken arsenic, he would have blue spots.
The term subjunctive has been used as a replacement, though it is also acknowledged as a misnomer. Many languages do not have a subjunctive (e.g., Danish and Dutch) and many that do have it don’t use it for this sort of conditional (e.g., French, Swahili, all Indo-Aryan languages that have a subjunctive). Moreover, languages that do use the subjunctive for such conditionals only do so if they have a specific past subjunctive form.
Recently the term X-Marked has been used as a replacement, with indicative conditionals renamed as O-Marked conditionals.
Biscuit conditionals (also known as relevance or speech act conditionals) are conditionals where the truth of the consequent does not depend on the truth of the antecedent.
There are biscuits on the table if you want some.
If you need anything, my name is Joshua.
If I may be honest, you're not looking good.
In Metalinguistic conditionals, the antecedent qualifies the usage of some term. For instance, in the following example, the speaker has unconditionally asserted that they saw the relevant person, whether or not that person should really be called their ex-husband.
I saw my ex-husband, if that's the right word for him.
Non-declarative conditionals. In conditional questions, the antecedent qualifies a question asked in the consequent.
If Mary comes to the party, will Katherine come too?
If Angel forgets her guitar, what will we do?
In conditional imperatives, the antecedent qualifies a command given in the consequent.
If you are at an intersection, turn right!

Conditional relationships are more complex and unique than time relationships or any other relationship. These relationships have been studied more seriously in both logic and linguistics. "Conditionality is a complex structure, a complex system of relations."⁵⁵

All conditioned relations are based on one idea, i.e. one event gives rise to another and two events occur according to the existence of the first. In other words, the basis of this relationship is the idea of ​​"cause and effect" (in the broadest sense). The natures of the interpretation of events, the purpose of the speaker’s communication, etc., play a decisive role in the manifestation of this idea; the exact types of conditional relations differ. Take, for example, the following two events: the hard work of farmers (case 1) and the food crisis abundance (event 2). Of these, event 1 is the causal event and event 2 is the incoming event, i.e., they are related according to the conditional relationship. Since they relate to each other on the basis of the idea of ​​"cause and effect", the following types of conditional relations can be observed: The farmers worked hard, so there was plenty of food. There was plenty of food as the farmers worked hard. As the farmers worked hard, there was plenty of food. So there was plenty of food, and the farmers worked hard.
2. The conditional relationship, i.e., event 1 is conditional for event 2 to occur, is hypothesized for both: If the farmers work diligently, there will be plenty of food. If the farmers worked hard, there would be plenty of food. As long as the farmers work hard, there will be plenty of food. If the farmers work hard, there is plenty of food will be.
3. The incompleteness relation, i.e., event 1 is a condition for the fulfillment of event 2, although it is understood according to presupposition, this condition is not an obstacle: Although the farmers worked hard, there was not enough food or the farmers did not work hard. There was plenty of food.
4. The goal relationship, i.e., event 2 as a target result of the realization of event 1 occurs: Farmers worked hard to get plenty of food. Farmers worked hard to ensure food was plentiful.
5. Result relation, that is, event 2 occurs as a spontaneous consequence of the event: The peasants worked so diligently that the food was plentiful. The farmers worked so hard that as a result there was plenty of food.
According to S.A.Shuvalova, the relationship of cause, condition and purpose differs as follows: if the 1st event is real in relation to an objective being, the causal relationship is a condition if the event is not real, hypothetical, hypothetical approach, if there is an intention to implement event 2, the target approach occurs⁵⁶. As can be seen, the difference between the contents of the condition and the cause.
If it is based on the description of event 1, then the difference in the content of the target is based on the description of event 2, i.e. the event that results in the first two contents is important, if so, the content that emerges in the next context is important.
The logician P. V. Tavanets also writes about one of the important differences between causation and conditional judgments: will be displayed⁵⁷. Indeed, this can be clearly seen, for example, when the above two cause and effect relations are expressed: Farmers worked hard, so there was plenty of food. When farmers work hard, there will be plenty of food. Both events in the first sentence exist in the read entity, both events in the second sentence do not exist in the real entity, have not occurred, and their occurrence is assumed, assumed, imagined. To put it in general linguistic terms, events in a causal relationship are real and events in a conditional relationship are unreal.
The barrier relationship with the conditional relation is close to each other, which is also seen in their basic means of expression, i.e. in the expression of both relations the -sa conditional suffix is involved. Just a barrier in the expression of the relation the -sa is also used in conjunction with the (-da) load, and this load weakens the conditional relationship. It should be noted, however, that the conditional relationship still exists, but it is based on the barrier relationship as deep knowledge, not direct one.
If such knowledge does not exist, the barrier-free relationship will not occur. But unlike the conditional relationship, the vocabularies in the barrier relationship are real, not unreal. Compare: If farmers work hard, there will be plenty of food (conditional attitude, events are unreal). Although the farmers worked hard, there was not enough food (barrier-free attitude, events are real). It should be noted that the conditional relation in the same sentence is present in the context of the next unobstructed follow-up sentence as deeper knowledge.
Events in the outcome relationship will also be real. In this case, event 1 is not done intentionally to cause event 2, but event 1 is performed in such a way that the result is spontaneous as event 2.
The five different types of conditioned relations are represented in five different adverbial conjunctions: cause, condition, impedance, purpose, and result in adverbial conjunctions. The formal features of such adverbial conjunctions, the partial semantic peculiarities, and the means of connection are described in Uzbek linguistics.⁵⁸ It is therefore not necessary to dwell in detail on the same aspects in this follow-up sentence.

2.