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。
?
Japanese Language Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for students, teachers, and linguists wanting to discuss the finer points of the Japanese language. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this communityIs 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。
?
This is not meant as a rigorous translation template, but just a simplified illustration of the conceptual differences in your example:
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.
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。