Teacher Discussion Forums

Do you see any problems with the sentence given?

If I were there, I wouldn't have done that.

Thanks

José

I'd rather say, "If I had been there, I wouldn't have done it."

I think it sounds okay, for Americans. This is the subjunctive tense, which is still strong in American. I've heard the British have abandoned it, except for some set phrases such as "God save the queen." But not sure about that.
In one context, it is used for ideas that may be unattainable, or unfathomable. For instance, a child would say, "If I were president, I would..." whereas a presidential candidate, for whom the possibility is within range, might say "If I was president, I would..." This may be a tendency, however, and not a rule.

Omitting the if clause (or at most saying just 'Me, I'd've...' instead) could well be an option that a student might like to consider. But in reply to your question, Jose, I don't think the "mixed" original sentence sounds so wrong that it would raise that many eyebrows in rapid conversation, and more than a few of us might've (unbeknowest to ourselves) have even said something like it at one time or another...which leads me to ask, where is the example from?

Here's a good website describing it:

http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues ... ctive.html

The thing is that you have to ask yourself what reality is:

"If I were there"=I am not there now

"If I had been there" = I wasn't there then

"If I were there, I wouldn't have done that" works in the sense of "If I lived there, I wouldn't have done that". The background "if" describes a general situation that has as a result a single occurrence in the past:

"If my family were here, that wouldn't have happened" (they aren't, it did)

A: "My brother lives in Nairobi and last night he went jogging at midnight"

B: "It's a very dangerous place. If I were there I wouldn't have done that"

Juantwothree's example sounds fine to me. (It's always a matter of context, after all.)

...which leads me to ask, where is the example from?

We were discussing it on another forum. At least now I know some people wouldn't put me to death if I am ever to say such a sentence.

JTT nice context, thanks.

I don't know whether this relates to the problem; but I've noticed that some grammar sites (and forums) don't distinguish between dynamic and stative verbs in conditional structures.

Thus a sentence such as this will be presented as the pattern for a "type III conditional":

1. If he had swallowed the antidote, he wouldn't have died.

Here, the imaginary action (swallowing) is regarded as complete at the time of the imaginary action (not dying) in the main clause.

Where the if-clause presents an imaginary state, however, it's quite possible for the imaginary state to continue beyond the imaginary action in the main clause, e.g.

2. If I were a doctor, I wouldn't have given him the antidote.

Since the structure in #2 appears to combine a "type II" if-clause with a "type III" main clause, it will be classed (again, on some sites) as a "mixed conditional".

The word "mixed" will be enough to condemn it, in the eyes of some people; and "If I had been a doctor" may be suggested as a tidy alternative, thus turning the sentence into a standard "type III".

This however ignores the fact that if I was a doctor yesterday, I am very probably a doctor today as well. (Unless of course I administered the wrong antidote, and have been struck off in the meantime.)

MrP

Yes, that's pretty much the idea I was fumbling after.

But it works for any verb:


If I went to church more often/If I cut bread in a different way/ If I drew better/If he knew how to play football/If you loved me/If the earth were flat

that wouldn't have happened.

It doesn't seem relevant that in other situations some of these verbs are considered dynamic and some stative.

BTW Conditionals can be very mixed with nothing to condemn. In fact a time travelling wizard can make any conditional he or she wants:

"If you do that again I haven't bought you a Christmas present"

It doesn't seem relevant that in other situations some of these verbs are considered dynamic and some stative.

Yes, true enough!

1. If X, Y wouldn't have happened.

I wonder then whether it would be too restrictive to say that where the verb in X is stative, or where X implies a stative or repeated situation, a "type II" is possible. Thus:

2. If he were a better driver, he wouldn't have run into the back of that Skoda.

— a state in the (type II) if-clause.

3. If he didn't always drive so fast, he wouldn't have run into the back of that Skoda.

— a persistent action that attains stativity in the (type II) if-clause.

Whereas:

4. If he had driven more carefully, he wouldn't have run into the back of that Skoda.

— a single action in the (type III) if-clause.

Conditionals can be very mixed with nothing to condemn.

Yes, I agree. It seems to be the combination of the immediate and remote that causes most discomfort among posters on this subject, e.g.

5. If he drives more carefully, he wouldn't run into so many Skodas.

But sometimes the mixture can express "sudden vividness", e.g. in the football commentator's

6. If he'd only done X, that was a goal.

MrP

JuanTwoThree wrote:The thing is that you have to ask yourself what reality is:

"If I were there"=I am not there now

"If I had been there" = I wasn't there then

This is too strict for American usage. Americans use the subjunctive when the past tense is indicated: "If I were there" = at the time of the accident when it happened = I wasn't there then. It is impossible to go back in time and fix it. It is just speculation. Your examples may work for British, but in British, you probably don't need to use the subjunctive at all, and can go around it as the above posts demonstrate. But that's where American may like the subjunctive for economy — because one word can take the place of the two-word past present, and, to American ears, that doesn't sound stuffy (in some examples) or as if going around the bush.

So are you saying that:

If I were happy at 10.00 yesterday, I'd have gone out at 10.15.

If I saw him, I wouldn't have said anything.


are standard AmE?

BTW I'm fairly sure that none of the examples "go around the subjunctive" . "If I drew better" is just as subjunctive as "If I were you" no matter how often that "drew" is called "past simple" . It's also useful mentally though not really essential terminologically to distinguish between

"When I had seen him, I left the room" past perfect indicative

"If I had seen him, I'd have left the room" past perfect subjunctive

Perhaps "irrealis" is a better term, even if it sounds like a Harry Potter spell.

IRREALIS!

I think you can use were. You can say it both ways in American. If you take out the time, it sounds better: If I were happy, I would have gone out. Maybe it sounds a little strange with emotions for some reason; it might sound better if this state of sadness or depression was chronic or extended at that time in life, instead of a fleeting moment. It would sound okay like this: if I were in bed, I wouldn't have gone out. But we can do it the other way as well: Had I been in bed, I wouldn't have gone out. I see your point with the second sentence. We would have to say If I had seen him because the past tense by itself doesn't tell us immediately that we are in the subjunctive, and thus causes a definite miscue. The subjunctive be verb, however, immediately distinguishes itself from the past tense.

Of course it sounds better without the time. That's why I put the time in.

Because, as you say, "If I were happy, I would have gone out" to me sounds like "If I were generally speaking a happy person before during and after the going out" which is different from "at a particular moment"

But your "if I were in bed, I wouldn't have gone out" doesn't sound right to me unless the "If" refers to the opposite of what is true now (I'm not, I did), which is entirely possible. IRREALIS!


"If I were in bed at at 10.00, I wouldn't have gone out at 10.15"

How does that sound? Can AmE really use if+past (subjunctive(irrealis) like this:

"If I were at the party at 11.00, I'd have heard the shots"