"would be" and other things

[Nightmare85]

Hello,
This topic is complex as well!
I made an online test some weeks ago.
In this test I learned that it's wrong to use 2 times the same word.
(For example two times "would have".)
Now I have a question.
Which sentence is correct and why is it correct?
(Let's ignore its sense.)

If you would be faster, you would be much more interesting to other people.
This sentence (as it is) should be wrong because it contains two times "would be".
That means there are two other versions available:
If you were faster, you would be much more interesting to other people.
If you would be faster, you were much more interesting to other people.
(Two times "were" should be wrong as well, shouldn't it?)

My instinct says sentence 2 (were + would be) is correct, however, I could never explain it...
I hope you can give me some advice!

Cheers!

 

[sarat_106]

Hello,
This topic is complex as well!
I made an online test some weeks ago.
In this test I learned that it's wrong to use 2 times the same word.
(For example two times "would have".)
Now I have a question.
Which sentence is correct and why is it correct?
(Let's ignore its sense.)

If you would be faster, you would be much more interesting to other people.
This sentence (as it is) should be wrong because it contains two times "would be".
That means there are two other versions available:
If you were faster, you would be much more interesting to other people.:tick:
If you would be faster, you were much more interesting to other people.:cross:
(Two times "were" should be wrong as well, shouldn't it?)

My instinct says sentence 2 (were + would be) is correct, however, I could never explain it...
I hope you can give me some advice!

Cheers!

Yours is an ‘if’ clause which can be subjunctive or indicative. “If I were” is a past subjunctive. According to the traditional rule, the subjunctive should be used to describe an occurrence that is presupposed to be contrary to fact, as in: if I were ten years younger or if I were you. If I were the President, I should (or would) declare war against terrorism. (note the use of modal verb would or less frequently should in the main clause)
Similarly “If you were faster” is contrary to the fact and is a case of past subjunctive.. So the use of ‘would’ in the main clause is appropriate.

 

[Raymott]

Hello,
This topic is complex as well!
I made an online test some weeks ago.
In this test I learned that it's wrong to use [STRIKE]2 times[/STRIKE] the same word twice. Not necessarily.
(For example two times "would have".)
Now I have a question.
Which sentence is correct and why is it correct?
(Let's ignore its sense.)

If you would be faster, you would be much more interesting to other people.
This sentence (as it is) should be wrong because it contains two times "would be". No, it's not wrong because of that. It's wrong because it's ungrammatical.
That means there are two other versions available:
If you were faster, you would be much more interesting to other people. This is a correct sentence.
If you would be faster, you were much more interesting to other people. Nope. You can ditch this one.
(Two times "were" should be wrong as well, shouldn't it?)
Not necessarily. It would be wrong if you substituted it into that sentence though. Perhaps if you have the same form of modal verb in two clauses, this might give you a clue that something could be wrong.

My instinct says sentence 2 (were + would be) is correct, however, I could never explain it...
I hope you can give me some advice!

Cheers!

Here are some correct sentences using the same modals or verbs:

If you would be more apologetic, I would be more forgiving.
(You might object to this, since your sentences had the same subject in each clause).
If you'd be more considerate, you'd be more popular. [you would be]. This is grammatically correct, though we'd probably vary it for stylistic reasons. If you tried to be more considerate, you'd be more popular.

If my parents are too strict, yours are too lenient. [are, are]
If he was stealing beer, he was committing a crime. [was, was]

In summary, if it's grammatical and means what you intend to say, you may use the same phrase twice.

 

[Nightmare85]

Thank you!

If you would be more apologetic, I would be more forgiving.
(You might object to this, since your sentences had the same subject in each clause).

*objection*
No, seriously:
Why can it not be:
If you were more apologetic, I would be more forgiving.
Or even:
If you were more apologetic, I were more forgiving.
(Especially compared to my sentence.)Sorry, this is difficult to me

Cheers!

 

[bhaisahab]

Thank you!


*objection*
No, seriously:
Why can it not be:
If you were more apologetic, I would be more forgiving.
Or even:
If you were more apologetic, I were more forgiving.
(Especially compared to my sentence.)Sorry, this is difficult to me

Cheers!

If you were more apologetic, I would be more forgiving.:tick:
Or even:
If you were more apologetic, I were more forgiving.:cross:

 

[sarat_106]

Thank you!


If you were more apologetic, I would be more forgiving.
Or even:
If you were more apologetic, I were more forgiving.
(Especially compared to my sentence.)Sorry, this is difficult to me

Cheers!

In conditional sentences the clause introduced by “if” may contain either a past subjunctive verb (if I were going) or an indicative verb (if I am going; if I was going), In the both sentences above the “if clause” is in the past subjunctive, so you have no option but to use ‘would’ or ‘should’ in the main clause. Now let us for a change, convert the clause in the second sentence by using an indicative verb, then you have a choice depending on the intended meaning you like to express; as:
If you are more apologetic, I will/would/can be more forgiving. ( The use of the modal verb ‘will’ indicates definiteness or certainty)
The use of ‘would’ instead of ‘will’ means: a wish or possibility to forgive more where as ‘can’ expresses ‘capability’. You can also say:
If you are more apologetic, I am more forgiving

 

[Raymott]

If you were more apologetic, I would be more forgiving.:tick:
Or even:
If you were more apologetic, I were more forgiving.:cross:

Yes, but neither you nor sarat have commented on:
"If you would be more apologetic, I would be more forgiving".
This phrasing gives the impression that person A could be more apologetic, as opposed to "If you were more handsome, I would go out with you".
In this case, one can't use "If you would be more handsome ...."

Perhaps some easier examples:
If you would keep your dog on a leash, I would visit you more often. It's a type of bargaining.
If you kept your dog on a leash, I would visit you more often. This doesn't have the same connotation of a deal being made.

 

[Nightmare85]

Thank you again!

Oh guys, that seems to be more complex than I thought.
I will really try to understand these things.
If I still have any questions, I know who to ask ;-)

Cheers!

 

[bhaisahab]

Yes, but neither you nor sarat have commented on:
"If you would be more apologetic, I would be more forgiving".
This phrasing gives the impression that person A could be more apologetic, as opposed to "If you were more handsome, I would go out with you".
In this case, one can't use "If you would be more handsome ...."

Perhaps some easier examples:
If you would keep your dog on a leash, I would visit you more often. It's a type of bargaining.
If you kept your dog on a leash, I would visit you more often. This doesn't have the same connotation of a deal being made.

Yes, I agree. In the right context, "If you would be more apologetic, I would be more forgiving". is correct.