Eldin Raigmore wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:28:35 -0700, Paul Hartzer <[log in to unmask]> 
>This (and your other examples) is extremely hard to parse for me, even if it's 
>technically well-formed English. Here's something that work much better for 
>"If you're going to want some pie if you finish your vegetables, you'd better 
>finish your vegetables while they're still warm."

That's parsable (sp?) for me, but still awkward. I think I'd stick in a comma after "pie"....  or substitute "provided (that)" for the second "if".  Personally, I'd only use two ifs for humor-- "We could grill steaks, if we had any charcoal, if we had any matches..."

The occasion hasn't arisen, but I suspect we'd have to rephrase, somehow, in Kash or my other 2 conlangs.
> But, as far as natlangs go, I'm mostly concerned about those languages in 
which either the protasis or the apodosis or both must be put in a 
(the?) "conditional" mood.

Of course in Spanish, the pro. is subjunctive, the apo. is conditional (or sometimes subjunctive too, just for fun). I think they can both be indicative in some cases ("if Obama had a news conference (si...dio una conferencia), I didn't listen to it (no la escuché)" implying that perhaps there was a news conference but in any case I didn't hear it; very different from "si...diera...., no la escucharía (if he _should_ give.... I wouldn't listen.... or, if he gives....I won't listen)

> English doesn't require either the protasis or the apodosis to be put in 
a "conditional" mood.  Modern English doesn't have a conditional mood;...

No, but we can insert things like "should, were to..." as in the ex. above. And some of us still demand the "subjunctive" in "if I _were_ you, I wouldn't do that" and similar.

> Speaking of such things, how about:
"that that"
"had had"
"is is"
the first two of which come up in "correct" written English, the third in informal 
colloquial spoken English?
Do you have in mind such things as "he said _that that_ would be wrong" ? That's a case of conjunction "that" plus dem.pron. "that". I can't think of a case where both "that"s are the conjuction......

"had had" is simply past perfect, isn't it?. No problem.

"is is" I suppose from the famous "...what the meaning of is is"  That's a case of 
"...what the meaning of is(NOUN) is(VERB)" perfectly normal if you substitute any other word in the NOUN slot (or, in writing, put quotes around it).