What kind of sentence is this?

“I will have failed if I haven’t given you a sense of the true excitement and surprises in mathematics and computer science.”

It is not “Future Conditional” so what is it?

That sounds odd to me. What about…I would have failed if I hadn’t given you…

You’re trying to use a third conditional.

I would guess so, but as a native speaker, and damn good one at that, I’m not sure.

“Will have failed” is a future perfect form:

There we go. “Future Perfect.” Habre fallado. I knew the sentence was right, but had no idea what to call it. I was waiting for a native English teacher or skill learner of English as a foreign language to show up.

Yes, it’s the future perfect + the present perfect in the “if” clause. And it looks like some sort of conditional but I have never met such a form in grammar books.

Grammar rules can’t categorize all kinds of sentences. This is an “unorthodox” kind of conditional, if you will but it’s perfectly correct.
Its sense is similar to a “Type III” conditional:
I would have failed if I hadn’t given you a sense…

To my mind, the future perfect seems to add a sense of immediacy: the moment I don’t give you that sense of excitement, I will fail

These are a kind of ‘factual conditional’ (not the technical term) aren’t they? It’s a case of “if A is true, then B is true”, or “since A is true, then B follows from A”.

Compare for example:

  1. “If I ever find a first edition copy of this book, I will definitely buy it.” This is just a statement of fact, so to speak.

  2. “If I were a millionaire, I would buy a Renoir” This, by contrast, is a purely hypothetical or imaginary scenario.

The first kind can be put into the future perfect.

  1. “If I don’t visit Paris, I will not have seen the capital city of France.” This is, of course, the kind of example we are dealing with in this thread. If a person has not done A then it follows he will also not have done B.

The second kind goes into the past conditional.

  1. “If had known it were possible, I would have done it.” And so on…

I think that technically they are (those “factual conditionals” seem to be called Type I conditionals in standard English grammar) because the main clause has future verb form and the second is not a simple past.
However, the sense seems to be closer to Type III (with past conditional) because it expresses a so-called “counterfactual”
I gave you a sense and excitement, so I have not failed but if that would not have been the case, if I hadn’t give you that sense, then I would have failed
It’s a contrary-to-fact assertion, whereas Type I conditionals refer to situations in which the main clause may become real and it’s even likely than it does

Here’s a discussion of the standard 3 kinds of English conditionals:

The above page links to a table which strives to list all possible combinations of tenses for all three kinds of conditionals:

Notice that the particular combination that OP mentions (perfect present plus perfect future) does not show up. The closest thing is perfect present plus simple future (which clearly would be a Type I)

I find it absolutely amazing of your knowledge of the English language I am a native and wouldn’t have the faintest idea of what to call that haha

It’s first conditional.

In the basic pattern it usually uses the simple future in the main clause, though future progressive, future perfect and future perfect progressive are also possible (along with other modal verbs or even an imperative).

The present tense in the condition clause may also take the form of the simple present, present progressive, present perfect or present perfect progressive.

1 Like

Yes, on second thought, I think that you and Jay are right. The speaker is wondering if he has been able to transmit a sense of excitement, maybe he has, maybe he has not, both things are possible, but if he has not, then it’ll be a failure.
So, it’s a “factual” or “Type I” conditional, similar to Jay’s “If I don’t go to Paris…” example

Thank you guys for your replies!

How much of a technical knowledge of such grammar topics is necessary is open to debate. As a native speaker you don’t need to have the faintest idea of what to call these concepts. You know how to express yourself and how to understand the utterances of others without thinking about such things. Ultimately that’s were we want to be with our target languages. Native youngsters choose the right word without having ever heard of gerunds and participles I’m able to enjoy reading Russian novels without conciously thinking of things like future perfect progressive and type 2 conditionals.

However, understanding some terms can help you grasp nuances. Knowing participles and gerunds certainly makes it quick and easy to explain when you need to translate “talking” into Russian as “govoryaschiy” versus when you need use “govorya”, though you could manage to explain it in other (more numerous) words.