We can model it with expressions like "for some X, if x has read long books then x can read this book".
So we can model the truth conditions of what you mean in English. But to model precisely the kind of dependency of past tense actions to future tense ones, I don't think we can do that in a semantics based on classical logic. All we can do is match the antecedent and the consequent's truth together. For example, when I say U: "If United score, they'll win", I have in mind a sense of "because"; I'm saying it's true because, for example, there's not much time left, or whatever. But logically, the sentence is still true if United score, get scored against, and then score again, even though, had i know united would be scored against after scoring, i wouldn't have thought "If united score, they'll win" was true.
Maybe the connection between consequent and and antecedent can be modelled better if we think that U is uttered under the assumption of implicit premises, and so so a short hand for every antecedent i have in mind, and when they're all satisfied, that models "because". Or maybe "because" is still there, a concept over and above the correspondence of truth between antecedent and consequent, and maybe some non classical logic (I'm not well versed in them I'm afraid) captures this I don't know.
It's an interesting question