Will examples be added to the last grammar point on this page? I don't entirely understand the explanation given and have nothing to go on.

About the second grammar point, I'm confused. The notes say the the second verb is past tense, but the model sentences have it in present tense. Are the notes or the model wrong?

What's the difference between the third and fourth meanings? They seem identical to me.

I understand what you're saying, but the meanings still seem practically identical to me. Part of the problem lies in the example sentences. Look at the examples for the fourth meaning: 1. 「電気を消すと、くらくなります。」 2. 「走るとつかれる」 3. 「なっとうを食べると、つきそうになる。」 Of these three, only the third one seems like it may belong under the fourth meaning. The first two are certainly obvious, natural, inevitable occurrences, are they not? To clarify the differences between these two usages, I think perhaps the fourth meaning can be best explained as describing an immediate sequence of events. I say this because there are situations where the subordinate clause (A) is not a cause and the main clause (B) is not an effect; rather, (B) simply directly follows (A) in time. For instance: 「彼は帰るとすぐ着替えてまた出かけた。」 As soon as he came home, he changed his clothes and went out again. What throws me off a little bit is that sometimes it's not so easy to draw a line between when 「と」 is describing a repeated factual condition, and when it is simply expressing a successive sequence of events. Consider these two seemingly identical usages: 「この坂を上り詰めると、よく海が見える。」 If you go up to the top of this slope, you can see the ocean quite well. 「次の角を右に曲がると、白い屋根の教会が見えます。」 As soon as you turn right at the next corner, you'll see a church with a white roof. Now, at first these seemed like identical usages of 「と」, but I think that the key difference is that the first sentence is describing a repeated factual condition - the key is the use of the word よく. In other words, the emphasis is not so much on the temporal relationship of the main clause to the first half of the sentence, but instead on the factual condition that there is always a good view of the ocean from the top of the hill. It's an extremely subtle difference, I know, but it's a difference that I know must exist because these two sentences come from separate meanings of the 「と」 conditional in one of my grammar books. It is also entirely possible that there is some tiny degree of overlap between the two usages, and that a small number of sentences can fall reasonably well under both meanings at the same time (such as the above two examples), which may have been one of the primary sources of my confusion. Obviously I'm still fleshing these ideas out, but the way I'm seeing it right now is that there are basically two fundamentally distinct, yet at the same time often incredibly similar and related usages of this conditional: [1] repeated factual conditions/habitual occurrences/natural occurrences (note that this already corresponds nicely with our meaning #3 here on this page) [2] an immediate sequence of two events (which may or may not be operating in a cause/effect relationship) I'd really like to know what everyone else thinks about this, but for now I'm going to suggest that the fourth meaning on the page be narrowed in its scope to only pertain to usage [2], while the first meaning be left as is to encompass everything else.

Upon further searching, I cannot find reference in two larger texts to the 'sequence of events' style definition. Which reference are you looking at? I wonder if it would simply be easier (considering the scope of this library) to combine the two?

Combined!

First of all, I don't think there is a command form that ends in 「と」. Even if there is (I've never come across it yet), I know for sure that there is no [dictionary form + と] command form. Options for imperative forms that I know of are 「洗え」,　「洗って」,　「洗いなさい」

It's no bother at all, we are all learning this stuff together.

This is from a Japanese teacher, and I quote: [quote]言わないって。 we dont put と after verb in any form. who said like that ?? へんだよ～[/quote]

Problem, though, is that most language teachers don't have their minds organized like a filing cabinet, where they can say 'verbs, what can follow it?' then get a perfect list. I can think off the top of my head, like you gave, several examples. しないとね << shortened form of といけない . It can be a bit dangerous at times to say 'this NEVER happens' 彼はやると言いました There's another one. I will, for the time being, remove it from this page until I decide the best way to re-add it. I do think, though, that said teacher spoke a little too quickly.

Yea, definitely agree with you there. I will revisit the re-addition of it (on a separate page) when I have some time - need to get back to 2 more key features for the beta renshuu! yay! Thanks for all of your input and taking the time to help lookup (and consult with others) so we can have the most accurate info!

I want to say that it seems there has been made a mistake on this page. If you go through the discussion here, you'll find a talk from years ago about the two possible meanings of [verb non-past]+と~[verb non-past]. That is the following: [quote]there are basically two fundamentally distinct, yet at the same time often incredibly similar and related usages of this conditional: [1] repeated factual conditions/habitual occurrences/natural occurrences (note that this already corresponds nicely with our meaning #3 here on this page) [2] an immediate sequence of two events (which may or may not be operating in a cause/effect relationship) [/quote] Right now, only [1] is represented on this page. This caused me extreme confusion, because the study book I was using was clearly using [2] and could not be using [1]. (I could derive the meaning from the context, but I came here to check the exact grammar because I'd never encountered this use of と before). The sentence in question is the following, btw: 男は、畑に行くと、その絵を木の枝につけました。 The man went to the field and hung the picture on a tree branch. I of course have no clue what happened since this discussion was held three years ago. But I'm guessing there was some kind of mistake and something was removed that shouldn't have been? Because as is now this page is extremely confusing when you are looking for this use of と and can't find it anywhere until you read the comments.

Thanks for your quick response as well! I think it should be separated out into an entirely different meaning (on this page). For one because I think that way is the most clear, but also because if you go to the page for たら: (http://www.renshuu.org/index.php?page=grammar/individual&id=109), there you have an almost identical situation, and it separates them into entirely different meanings. So it would keep things consistent across pages as well.

Took me a while to check back, but I just want to say great to see you added it! It'll be a great help to anyone else coming here looking for the same thing. :D

Agreed for #1, and added! Need to get some example sentences up on #4 soon, first.

Whoops, sorry about that! I am 100% sure that there is no だ, but my brain must have crossed wires when I was inputting it.