conditionals - 2nd Condition or mixing 2nd and 3rd for assumption time in the past


Which of the two following sentences would be better to use for a situation where I regret that I did not do something in the past?




  1. If it were yesterday, I would buy the car.




  2. If it were yesterday, I would have bought the car.




I’m confused about the action I buy the car didn’t happen in the past (yesterday), so I think mixing 2nd and 3rd conditionals for this situation is correct. But my friend said it might be 2nd conditional.


Should I use the 2nd conditional or a mixed one for this case?


Edit: My "It" means "now" here.



Answer



Formal Written English


There are quite a few possible ways to join up conditionals using one or another past-tense form. Here are just a few of them:



  1. If it was yesterday, I bought the car.

  2. If it was yesterday, I will have bought the car.

  3. If it was yesterday, I must have bought the car.

  4. If it were yesterday, I would buy the car.

  5. If it were yesterday, I would have bought the car.

  6. If it had been yesterday, I would have bought the car.


To express regret at not having done something in the past, then the consequent should be a perfect construction. Therefore you need have bought in the second clause, and so only the last two are possible for the sense you looking for.


Some folks might prefer 6 over 5, so that there is a compound tense in both the first part of the conditional (fancy name: protasis) and in its consequent (fancy name: apodosis).


But there really is no difference between them, and no one could ever find an iota of meaning-shift by electing 5 over 6 or 6 over 5.


Informal Written English


People don’t much talk precisely the way those are written above. That’s because in the speech of any register lower than that of true oratory (such as in a formal delivery from a preacher, a judge, or in olden days, a politician) native speakers will virtually always contract the auxiliaries. They just don’t always choose the same ones to contract.


In normal conversation, that same sixfold set given above therefore runs more like this:



  1. If it was yesterday, I bought the car.

  2. If it was yesterday, I’ll have bought the car.
    If it was yesterday, I’ll’ve bought the car.

  3. If it was yesterday, I must’ve bought the car.

  4. If it were yesterday, I’d buy the car.

  5. If it were yesterday, I’d have bought the car.
    If it were yesterday, I would’ve bought the car.
    If it were yesterday, I’d’ve bought the car.

  6. If it’d been yesterday, I would’ve bought the car.
    If it’d been yesterday, I’d have bought the car.
    If it’d been yesterday, I’d’ve bought the car.


Spoken English


Although I’m still using the accepted standard orthography for the contractions, you as a nonnative speaker should understand that the conventions of writing do not reflect the actual pronunciations.


Rather, actual pronunciations of -d’ve are nearly always rendered as unstressed /də/ in speech.


You will sometimes see this reflected in eye dialect in reported conversation, such as woulda/coulda/shoulda, or even Ida.


I don’t recommend that, however.


Literary English


To swing the other direction towards a more formal or literary register, these possibilities exist:



  1. If it was yesterday, I bought the car.

  2. If it was yesterday, I will have bought the car.

  3. If it was yesterday, I must have bought the car.

  4. Were it yesterday, I would buy the car.

  5. Were it yesterday, I would have bought the car.

  6. Had it been yesterday, I would have bought the car.


Probably the most interesting thing about this third set is that inversion and consequent if-deletion is possible only in the true hypotheticals alone, not in the other situations.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

verbs - "Baby is creeping" vs. "baby is crawling" in AmE

Years and years ago, I remember reading in a book on AmE usage that the phrasal turn a baby creeps before it walks was to some extent more common to AmE than to BrE, which preferred exclusively the "crawl" version. And so, I just recently checked on the accuracy of that information on NGram Viewer , and it actually was fact... more than a century ago! What I would like you to tell is if it would sound sort of weird to hear someone say today in the US that a child "creeps" before walking and running (see Synonyms ) rather than it crawls. Also, what's the story to those terms? How did "to crawl" come to prevail and supersede "to creep" to describe the way a baby moves around? As with a plant, so with a child. His mind grows by natural stages. A child creeps before he walks , sits before he stands, cries before he laughs, babbles before he talks, draws a circle before he draws a square, lies before he tells the truth, and is selfish before he
Read more

commas - Does this sentence have too many subjunctives?

Does this sentence have too many subjunctives? If it please the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed, and I will pay 10,000 talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king's business, that they may put it into the king's treasuries. I am stumped by this sentence construction. First, there is "Let it be," which is a common English idiomatic phrase, but then it follows another subjunctive. Is that to say you can actually have a subjunctive followed by another subjunctive? Also, why does the sentence use "please"? If that's the subjunctive tense there, then why is it followed by another subjunctive instead of a conditional, or maybe "Let it be" is the conditional? Lastly, I wish to know how the that is used in the sentence. Perhaps, the simplified sentence can be restated like so: Let it be decreed that they be destroyed and that they may put it into the king's treasuries. If not, maybe the simplified sent
Read more

grammatical number - Use of lone apostrophe for plural?

I've been reading William Manchester's book "American Caesar", which is about Douglas MacArthur, and I found that he uses a strange convention for pluralizing the family name. When talking about the MacArthurs as a whole, he writes MacArthur' with an apostrophe, as in "After the war, the MacArthur' lived in Tokyo while the general was proconsul" (yes, he uses that term to describe him). I have never seen or heard of a rule that would prescribe this. Manchester is a bit old-timey in his style: for example, he also writes "in behalf of" instead of "on behalf of", which is the only one I have ever seen. So perhaps this is similar. Where does he get this apostrophe from? Edit: There seems to be some difficulty finding examples, which is odd. Here is a direct link to a page from Google Books that shows the apostrophe.
Read more

etymology - Where does the phrase "doctored" originate?

This is a phrase I’m particularly confused about, because it’s used often when something is manipulated or changed. For example, sometimes images surface online that are clearly Photoshopped, but people refer to them as “doctored” images. Why use the word “doctored” here? Answer The earliest Google Books match for an instance of doctored in a transitional (or perhaps post-transitional) sense between "amended" and "adulterated" appears in William Marshall, The Rural Economy of Glocestershire; Including Its Dairy: Together with the Dairy Management of North Wiltshire, and the Management of Orchards and Fruit Liquor, in Herefordshire , volume 2 (1789): Men in general, however, whose palates are set to rough cider, consider the common sweet sort as an effeminate beverage; and rough cider, properly manufactured, is probably the most generous liquor; being deemed more wholesome, to habits in general, than sweet cider:—even when genuine. That which is drank, in the kingd
Read more

phrases - Somebody is gonna kiss the donkey

I heard this phrase when I was watching Battleship. An old man said, "Somebody is gonna kiss the donkey." I do not know what it means, I only heard it in a movie. What is this phrase mean? In Addition: I think it was Rihanna who said "Saddle Ridge will be in weapons range in five minutes," then the old man stated the phrase. Answer It is a confused attempt at a play on (for example) "kiss my ass," or, some similar phrase. It is quite common in English today that idioms get mangled.
Read more

typography - When a dagger is used to indicate a note, must it come after an asterisk?

The typographical symbol dagger (†) has several meanings. Possibly its most common use is as a footnote marker. According to You Have a Point There: A Guide to Punctuation and Its Allies ( Partridge , 1953), when it is used for this purpose, it must be used for second footnotes only; the first footnote should be indicated by an asterisk (*), the third a double dagger (‡) and further footnotes other symbols or numbers. Where does Patridge's rule fall on a scale of one to ten, where one is "this is just one guy's random opinion" and ten is "this is a widely accepted rule of English and any deviation from it is unarguably incorrect"? This question was inspired by this Meta Stack Overflow question about the use of daggers on Stack Exchange site FAQ pages . Answer The dagger (also known as an obelisk ) is properly used for the second footnote. The asterisk is for the first, and the double dagger is for the third. This is supported by several websites: And so
Read more

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"

What is the origin of the phrase shit eating grin ? How did it come to mean showing smugness or self-satisfaction of an individual's actions? Answer From the Urban Dictionary: ...these uses are documented in the Oxford English Dictionary no earlier than 1957 There have been similar expressions used quite far back: In Book XXI of his History of Rome, Livy describes a Carthaginian sect of coprophages, the risus faecivorus, or shit-eating grin, being commonly displayed by its adherents. Although, its origin is undetermined, they may have been incidents which caused the invention of this phrase. Below is an excerpt: "1944 Jrnl. Nerv. & Mental Dis. XCIX. 959 Among demented patients in advanced stages of their illness,..it is not rare to see some of them grasp their own feces, chew them and eat them often with great pleasure and satisfaction (coprophagia).
Read more