28180
Is there some nuance between using each one?

For example:

Could I use と in place of -ba form in

> 電気を消せば暗くなる。

or in place of -ra form in

> 電気を消したら暗くなる。

like this:

> 電気を消すと暗くなる。

?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-21T08:29:22.580
28171
2015-09-21T20:25:02.077
7405
question
word-choice particles conjugations conditionals
Difference between using -ba or -ra form and と for conditionals?
To answer your question, No you can not use と in the first 2 sentences. To
explain further, in Japanese, there are total 4 forms to explain the condition
and its corresponding outcome. They are generally classified as follows:

  * と  
Used to state natural consequences. In above example, getting dark is a
natural consequence.

  * なら  
Used to explain the contextual conditions. In short, it gives an answer to the
question "What you will do if this context occurs?"

  * ～ば  
Same as なら, but in formal way.

  * ～たら  
Used to explain past conditions, as past tense ends with たら/ったら。
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-21T11:40:31.807
28174
2015-09-21T12:48:07.520
2015-09-21T12:48:07.520
1628
11243
28171
answer
This is not meant as a rigorous translation template, but just a simplified
illustration of the conceptual differences in your example:

  1. P **すれば** Q → **If** P, Q **will** happen
  2. P **したら** Q → **When** P, Q **will** happen
  3. P **すると** Q → P, **and** Q happens

### 電気を消す → 暗くなる

  1. 電気を消せば〜 (If I turn off the light, it will get dark)
  2. 電気を消したら〜 (When I turn off the light, it will get dark)
  3. 電気を消すと〜 (I turn off the light, and it gets dark)

### お店に行く → ポスターをもらえる

  1. お店に行けば〜 (If I go to the store, I will receive a poster)
  2. お店に行ったら〜 (When I go to the store, I will receive a poster)
  3. お店に行くと〜 (I go to the store, and I receive a poster)

### 食事をする → 元気になる

  1. 食事をすれば〜 (If I eat, I will recover)
  2. 食事をしたら〜 (When I eat, I will recover)
  3. 食事をすると〜 (I eat, and I recover)

* * *

In other words, (1) feels more strictly conditional, and (2) feels more
temporal. In (3), your conviction in the inevitability between P and Q feels
weaker, almost like you’re not really sure why or how P is causing Q. (This
often resembles inductive reasoning, where you only know that “P results in Q”
because of prior experiences.)

I guess the short answer is, sometimes they can be switched without a major
shift in meaning, and sometimes not. Depends on what you're trying to convey.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-21T19:10:30.010
28180
2015-09-21T20:25:02.077
2015-09-21T20:25:02.077
888
888
28171
answer