Printable View
If you had come in time, you wouldn't have missed the train.
Hi!
I am wondering about the legitimacy of the phrase written above. Is it correct?
If so, why does the first part contain had while the second contains have?
I hope for help in English and Russian.
Thank you! :D
That phrase is correct but I can not tell you why. I know nothing about the use of "have or had" either.
BUT, many people will say that phrase as, "If you had have come in time, you wouldn't have missed the train."
Don't ask me about why there is a "had have" in their because I don't know. I don't even know if it is good or bad English but I can tell you that, that is how I would have said the sentence.
Also, I don't know why I just said "that, that"!
........I speak that way, too. :)
English is silly, isn't it? :wink:
Поезд уже ушел, и ты уже на него не успел (совершенный вид). Соответственно ты бы успел будет you wouldn't have missed (потому что действие произошло в прошлом). Если ты не будешь использовать have, то you wouldn't miss относилось бы к будущему периоду.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leof
Но поскольку здесь сложное предложение, да ещё и в сослагательном наклонении, нужно использовать past perfect в первом случае, потому что ты сначала не приехал вовремя (причина), а уж потом не успел на поезд (следствие).
Many people where? In Illiterate Land? Are you sure you meant to write that?Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT
Yes I did mean to write that.
Actually, to tell the truth, because I have never seen it in writing before, Your Pompousness, I am not really sure if it could not really be, "Had of" instead of "had have." Usually it is just shortened to, "hadda" .
As in, "If you hadda told me this in person I mighta believed ya."
Maybe it is Aussie colonial talk, I dunno.
:lol:
"Hadda"?
That's different. Yeah, you'd hear that.
You'd also hear "woulda" and "would've" a lot too.
Not "had have" though. No Way.
Thanks a lot DDT!
Рамиль, спасибо за помощь!
isn't it just a type 3 conditional sentence?
if + Past Perfect, would/should/could/might + have + pp
Type three is used to describe imaginary situations in the past, that is regrets, unfilfilled past, wishes impossible to fulfill, criticism etc.
I think "had have" might be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT
I think it's actually "you'd have", and "you'd" = you would.
I think "had have" might be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT
I think it's actually "you'd have", and "you'd" = you would.
Hmmm........I think, maybe, тату is right!
You have entered the mysterious realm of the English subjunctive. It is actually something which is becoming less and less common in English these days.
Another way to say the same thing is :
Had you come in (or on) time, you wouldn't have missed the train.
For a past conditions, you must use "had" as the helping verb. The second clause is not conditional. It is the result, so you use the past perfect form (Have + verb).
An even stranger way to say it:
Were you to have come in time, you wouldn't have missed the train.
This is the true subjunctive form, the one people don't really use any more.
For more info do a search for "God save the subjunctive."
I once said to my wife
"Had we been staying here instead of moving, we would have had to have paid our rent by now."
Parse that.
Most evil subjunctive... ever.
(Except, being Scottish, it probably sounded more like
"Hadoo bin stain here stead o movin, weduv hadtuv paid our rent banow.)
She wasn't impressed, in case you're wondering.
I really wish I heard this phrase! :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
How to learn the Scottish accent? Any idea? Anyone? :D
Clowns scare me, especially Scotcher's clown.
,,,,,,Can't you find a "nice" picture?
Have you been bearing with his avatar all these years? :)
Yes, it has always bothered me. But I suppose he can't change it now because he has used for for so long. :(
Clowns never really did anything for me... never...
If only you were special enough for them to make you something. No one can make you laugh, just because you have no sense of humour! :lol: :D :wink: :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
Нет, Тёма, кажется, Калинка хочет сказать, что клоуны не сделали ему ничего такого, ничего плохого...никогда. Поэтому, хоть он и презирает их, но не ненавидит всем сердцем. Я тоже думаю, что не все из них достойны уничтожения, но большинство - да.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rtyom
:lol:
К сожалению, Лёва, ты ошибся. Мне очень жаль, но так сложилось. Клоуны никогда ничего не делали для меня. Это значит, что от них я не получил ничего хорошего. Негодяйчики такие! :wink:
Для колорита забыл добавить «ух!». :DQuote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
Shouldn't there be ever instead?Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
Что ж, по большому счёту, это ничего не меняет! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
Мы должны очистить планету от клоунов! :lol:
Да. Клоуны — зло.
Как вспомню «Оно» Стивена Кинга, так мурашки по коже.
Тём, а в Оном был клоун?
Это про полярную станцию, где бедолаги вырыли изо льда весёлую космическую жуть?
Не...
Ты говоришь про «Нечто» («Thing»), а я про «Оно» («It»).
Значит, Нечто это нечто другое нежели Оно, а про что Оно? :D
Коулрофобия - страх перед клоунами.
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_фобий
It is usually "ever" but is doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Много про чего... В двух словах не объяснишь. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Leof