I assume that’s a typo. The correct form is あったら, not あがたら.
This is a bit too comprehensive to get into in a single comment, and it’d probably be best if you consulted a more comprehensive grammar resource for numerous example sentences, but the main difference is that the ～ば conditional has more of an “if and only if” connotation. i.e., Under what conditions will you make cookies? Well, you’ll make them if you have the time (but you won’t if you don’t).
The あったら is a more “neutral” conditional, setting up a hypothetical situation. Well, if it turns out that I have the time, I’ll make cookies. It doesn’t put as much focus on the condition/prerequisite as the ～ば version.
Both are roughly the same in this particular case. The problem is that conditional forms are used differently by different people. So it’s hard to say if specific nuance is present or not, because fundamentally it’s the speaker’s intention that determines it and we need rather deep understanding of them to decide if they are hinting on something or not.
What actually is important it’s to know about conditional forms limitations. In case of ば only one clause can contain subject’s volition/intention. So in case of one-time actions it’s limited to situations when either person reacts on something objective or when their actions can lead to it. For example, “if I have time” is rather objective, because a lot of things can happen to prevent it. “if I hurry” is intentional, so it can be combined only with objective situations like “I can make it in time”. Thus a lot of situations where ば is used are about requirements and often people say about such nuance of ば. Like it’s a requirement to hurry, otherwise it’s the opposite result “will be late”. Similarly it can be something like “if it rains, I will stay at home”, where it’s a requirement to rain for me to stay, otherwise I’m going to go somewhere. But because people can use conditional forms differently, it’s not guaranteed and we can’t say that every situation with ば is actually hinting on such requirement with the opposite result when it’s impossible. For example, look at such situation:
山に登れば Xが見えます “if you climb the mountain, you can see X”
Does that mean that climbing is a requirement to see it? Not really, we can see it in many different ways too like a video or we can fly over it. We can’t get the opposite meaning “you can’t see it if you don’t climb” here. And similarly it doesn’t mean that other conditional forms like たら can’t be used in the same requirements situations. That’s why it’s less about nuance (you will decide that by context), and more about simply being able to use it grammatically.
Another important point is that some conditional forms are very popular in specific set phrases. In case of ば it’s very common with いい (positive) and なきゃ(negative) up to the point that some of it’s traits started to associate with ば alone and developed side meanings like “should”. Basically if some person says いい人がいれば, it’s alone is enough for everyone to understand something along the lines of “It would be good if I had a good partner”, despite sentence alone doesn’t have anything like that at all, it’s only a conditional part.
2 comments
I assume that’s a typo. The correct form is あったら, not あがたら.
This is a bit too comprehensive to get into in a single comment, and it’d probably be best if you consulted a more comprehensive grammar resource for numerous example sentences, but the main difference is that the ～ば conditional has more of an “if and only if” connotation. i.e., Under what conditions will you make cookies? Well, you’ll make them if you have the time (but you won’t if you don’t).
The あったら is a more “neutral” conditional, setting up a hypothetical situation. Well, if it turns out that I have the time, I’ll make cookies. It doesn’t put as much focus on the condition/prerequisite as the ～ば version.
Both are roughly the same in this particular case. The problem is that conditional forms are used differently by different people. So it’s hard to say if specific nuance is present or not, because fundamentally it’s the speaker’s intention that determines it and we need rather deep understanding of them to decide if they are hinting on something or not.
What actually is important it’s to know about conditional forms limitations. In case of ば only one clause can contain subject’s volition/intention. So in case of one-time actions it’s limited to situations when either person reacts on something objective or when their actions can lead to it. For example, “if I have time” is rather objective, because a lot of things can happen to prevent it. “if I hurry” is intentional, so it can be combined only with objective situations like “I can make it in time”. Thus a lot of situations where ば is used are about requirements and often people say about such nuance of ば. Like it’s a requirement to hurry, otherwise it’s the opposite result “will be late”. Similarly it can be something like “if it rains, I will stay at home”, where it’s a requirement to rain for me to stay, otherwise I’m going to go somewhere. But because people can use conditional forms differently, it’s not guaranteed and we can’t say that every situation with ば is actually hinting on such requirement with the opposite result when it’s impossible. For example, look at such situation:
山に登れば Xが見えます “if you climb the mountain, you can see X”
Does that mean that climbing is a requirement to see it? Not really, we can see it in many different ways too like a video or we can fly over it. We can’t get the opposite meaning “you can’t see it if you don’t climb” here. And similarly it doesn’t mean that other conditional forms like たら can’t be used in the same requirements situations. That’s why it’s less about nuance (you will decide that by context), and more about simply being able to use it grammatically.
Another important point is that some conditional forms are very popular in specific set phrases. In case of ば it’s very common with いい (positive) and なきゃ(negative) up to the point that some of it’s traits started to associate with ば alone and developed side meanings like “should”. Basically if some person says いい人がいれば, it’s alone is enough for everyone to understand something along the lines of “It would be good if I had a good partner”, despite sentence alone doesn’t have anything like that at all, it’s only a conditional part.