an engineer was vs were here

Status
Not open for further replies.

ostap77

Key Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Ukrainian
Home Country
Ukraine
Current Location
Ukraine
1)"If an engineer was here, he would have explained this to us."

OR

2)"If an engineer were here, he would have explained this to us."

OR

3)"If an engineer were here, he would explain this to us."

1)The first part is grammatically incorrect but might be used in speech and refers to the present. The second part refers to a point in the past.

2) and 3) The first part is grammatically correct. The second part in the second sentence refers to a point in the past,whereas in the third one to the unreal future. Is my explanation correct?
 

TheParser

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
1)"If an engineer was here, he would have explained this to us."

OR

2)"If an engineer were here, he would have explained this to us."

OR

3)"If an engineer were here, he would explain this to us."

1)The first part is grammatically incorrect but might be used in speech and refers to the present. The second part refers to a point in the past.

2) and 3) The first part is grammatically correct. The second part in the second sentence refers to a point in the past,whereas in the third one to the unreal future. Is my explanation correct?

NOT A TEACHER

As I understand it:

(1) If an engineer were here, he would explain it. Unreal. There is

no engineer here.

(2) If an engineer was here, he would explain it. (Same as No. l.

Popular English use of "was" instead of the "correct" were.

(3) If an engineer had been here, he would have explained it.

An unreal situation in the past.
 

jamiep

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Scotland
Current Location
Thailand
1)

3)"If an engineer were here, he would explain this to us."

This is probably the best one to use and is grammatically correct, although not entirely a standard conditional structure.

Look up the "subjunctive" mood in a good grammar book.
 

ostap77

Key Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Ukrainian
Home Country
Ukraine
Current Location
Ukraine
NOT A TEACHER

As I understand it:

(1) If an engineer were here, he would explain it. Unreal. There is

no engineer here.

(2) If an engineer was here, he would explain it. (Same as No. l.

Popular English use of "was" instead of the "correct" were.

(3) If an engineer had been here, he would have explained it.


An unreal situation in the past.


What if I said "If an engineer was on the staff, he would've explained this to us." The first part would refer to the unreal present and the second( we don't have any on the staff that's why nobody explained this to us) would refer to a point in the past?
 
Last edited:

TheParser

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
What if I said "If an engineer was on the staff, he would've explained this to us." The first part would refer to the unreal present and the second( we don't have any on the staff that's why nodovy explained this to us) would refer to a point in the past?


NOT A TEACHER


Great question.

I am not qualified to answer it.

Let's see what a teacher/moderator says.
 

ostap77

Key Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Ukrainian
Home Country
Ukraine
Current Location
Ukraine
NOT A TEACHER


Great question.

I am not qualified to answer it.

Let's see what a teacher/moderator says.
If I'm not mistaken it's called mixed condtionals?
 

TheParser

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
If I'm not mistaken it's called mixed condtionals?

NOT A TEACHER

(1) I think that you are 100% correct.

(2) I had forgotten all about mixed conditionals.

(3) I found these examples which seem to be similar to your example in

their meanings:

If I was/were rich, I would have bought it.

(I am not currently rich, so I did not buy it.)

If Sam spoke Russian, he would have translated it.

(But Sam does not speak Russian, so he didn't translate it.)

If I didn't have to work, I would have gone there.

(But I have to work a lot. So I did not go last night.)

***

So I think (think) your sentence is fine:

If an engineer was/were here, he would have explained it.

(But there is no engineer here. So there was nobody to explain it yesterday.)

Thank you for reminding me about mixed conditionals.
 

Munch

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Japan
Not really!
While all are structurally possible, (1) and (2) are semantically absurd, since the unreal present fact of an engineer's being here is posited as the logical precondition of a nonexistent past explanation!

#3 is therefore the only grammatical and plausible sentence.

(1) and (2) make sense to me and this is how I understand them. If they had an engineer with them at that moment, the engineer would have already explained everything.

Anyway, they are all easily comprehended sentences. The meaning is clear in all three cases and they would not sound unusual to me if I heard them from a native speaker.

The engineer might not be male, though right? You might want to use gender neutral language. A lot of broads worry their pretty little heads over that kind of stuff.

Singular “they” anyone?


ETA:
Woah! Philo2009's post that I was replying to just disappeared. I swear those quotes are legitimate.
 
Last edited:

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
(1) and (2) make sense to me and this is how I understand them. If they had an engineer with them at that moment, the engineer would have already explained everything.

On reflection, agreed: viewed in that way, they could make sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top