If there had been no subtitles, I would have been unlikely to understand him

[svetlana14]

What is the difference between these two structures:"If there were no subtitles, I would be unlikely to have understood him and "If there had been no subtitles, I would have been unlikely to understand him"? Do they mean the same?

 

[emsr2d2]

In my opinion, the main difference is that I can't imagine a native speaker using the first one. I'd use either the second or "It's likely I wouldn't have understood him".

 

[svetlana14]

In my opinion, the main difference is that I can't imagine a native speaker using the first one. I'd use either the second or "It's likely I wouldn't have understood him".

1. I would like to have visited Liverpool while I was in UK but I didn't manage to.
2. I would have liked to visit Liverpool while I was in UK but I didn't manage to.
3. I would have liked to have visited Liverpool while I was in UK but I didn't manage to.

Are these sentences conventional contstructions? I do understand that the last one is grammatically correct but it's clumsy and cumbersome.

 

[svetlana14]

In my opinion, the main difference is that I can't imagine a native speaker using the first one. I'd use either the second or "It's likely I wouldn't have understood him".

In one of my previous posts you revised my question to read as follows: "To be frank, if there were no subtitles, I would be unlikely to have understood him. Might be The context would might have helped me somehow. It represents It's a problem for me. I was trying to find a kind other examples/instances of his American pronunciation of "needed" in YouTube and YouGlish but failed." Can you please clarify whether such construction as " I would be unlikely to have understood him" is Okay from grammatical point of view, but nevertheless is considered to be unconventional for English speakers?