On this page in Wikipedia!, it states for first conditional sentences:
The condition can also be expressed using the modal verb should. This form can be used to make an
inverted condition clause without a conjunction:
If you should make a mistake, ... (equivalent to "If you make a mistake")
Should you make a mistake, ... (inverted form again equivalent to the above).
Otherwise, the condition clause in a first conditional pattern is not normally formed with
a modal verb, other than can.
On English Stack Exchange many people write about should replacing if.
For example on this page called 'A special use of “should”?' the sentence
'Wilkinson is contesting the release, and threatened to sue should it be released.'
is given as an example. But are there usage for other modal verbs in an inverted
conditional sentence such as can and will, as opposed to the more commonly used should, had and were?
We know the following four pairs are equivalent:
If you feel hungry, ...(usual condition clause)
Should you feel hungry, ... (inverted form)
If she were here, ...(usual condition clause)
Were she here, ...(inverted form)
If you shot, ...(usual condition clause)
Were you to shoot, ... (inverted form)
If he had written, ...(usual condition clause)
Had he written, ... (inverted form)
But is this pair equivalent?
1). If she can be here, ... (usual condition clause)
Can she be here, ...(inverted form)
And what if you use it in the second part of a sentence?
2). Only with good teaching practices can you make the biggest impact in the classroom.
3). Only with more practice will you become better at it.