Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tdol In British English, this is far less common and would almost certainly be regarded as wrong. We do say 'if you would be so kind...I would be very grateful', so for us the use of 'would' in the if-clause has a function, politeness, persuasion, etc. I suppose it would be considered an error because it has no identifiable function and is replacing the standard form.  |
That's understandable. Agreed. Those forms are used in American English as well.
However, I think we should be clear about something. Your examples use "would + base form" in the "if" clause. What I initially posted has to do with using "would + have + past participle" in the "if" clause.
Quote:
|
I suppose it would be considered an error because it has no identifiable function and is replacing the standard form.
|
I see. So -
Specifically this: "would + have + past participle" in the "if" clause
Yes?
Would that be your explanation for why it's wrong? I've thought about this as well. I would say that "would have + past participle" in an "if" clause is wrong, or at least sounds strange, because that form is supposed to be used in the result clause. I'm speaking of third conditional type sentences here.
I understand how it works in your examples, but that's different. No problem there.
How do you feel about "if + could + have + past participle" in the "if" clause? It doesn't seem to be very commonplace. It would seem difficult to justify that while at the same time saying that "if + would + past participle" is wrong. I'm trying to take the students' point of view here.
For example:
If he had known, he would've said something. - If he could've known, he would've said something.