man of manners
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Member Type
- Interested in Language
- Native Language
- Arabic
- Home Country
- Egypt
- Current Location
- Egypt
I read all your most appreciated opinions.
I agree with jutfrank and Piscean about being the sentence referring to the past.
With due respect to all opinions, I'd like to give mine.
I'd like to clarify the whole matter at first as I see it:
We know that the conjunction "after" can be used in the If-clause in the first or the second or the third conditional or mixed conditionals, as well.
Let me show some examples so that it will be clear to all of us.
An example with the first conditional is: "if he succeeds after he studies/has studied hard, I will be so much happy."
When this example is backshifted in the past, we can get an example with the second conditional as follows, "if he succeeded after he studied/had studied hard, I would be so much happy."
We also can get an example with the third conditional as we said at the beginning of our discussion. Note the following example -which is grammatically correct as we previously discussed.
"if he had succeeded after he studied/had studied hard, I would have been so much happy."
As for the third conditional, we previously said that we need the past perfect, which denotes an irrealis past situation, and it doesn't conflict with the past perfect, which denotes a real past situation, used after the conjunction "after".
Also, the past simple can be used instead of the past perfect, which denotes an irrealis past situation, less commonly whether in formal or informal context as we will see later in the examples I will provide.
All I have said so far is about my opinion which I understood from your very much useful opinions and the examples I found on the internet.
Now, as for the first example, on the internet, I gave, I think it is a less common third conditional in which the past simple is used in the if-clause instead of the past perfectas I previously said because the sentence we are discussing implies the meaning of the simple sentence:
"you weren't anything like me after you had/ had had your first baby, so you weren't in shock and dismay...."
which also means:
"I was in shock and dismay after I had/had had my first baby but you weren't so you weren't anything like me after you had/had had your first baby, but if you had been, you would have been in shock and dismay as I was after I had my first baby"
That is what I think about the sentence I gave, so what do you think of my opinion?
Thank you very very much for your much appreciated posts.
I agree with jutfrank and Piscean about being the sentence referring to the past.
With due respect to all opinions, I'd like to give mine.
I'd like to clarify the whole matter at first as I see it:
We know that the conjunction "after" can be used in the If-clause in the first or the second or the third conditional or mixed conditionals, as well.
Let me show some examples so that it will be clear to all of us.
An example with the first conditional is: "if he succeeds after he studies/has studied hard, I will be so much happy."
When this example is backshifted in the past, we can get an example with the second conditional as follows, "if he succeeded after he studied/had studied hard, I would be so much happy."
We also can get an example with the third conditional as we said at the beginning of our discussion. Note the following example -which is grammatically correct as we previously discussed.
"if he had succeeded after he studied/had studied hard, I would have been so much happy."
As for the third conditional, we previously said that we need the past perfect, which denotes an irrealis past situation, and it doesn't conflict with the past perfect, which denotes a real past situation, used after the conjunction "after".
Also, the past simple can be used instead of the past perfect, which denotes an irrealis past situation, less commonly whether in formal or informal context as we will see later in the examples I will provide.
All I have said so far is about my opinion which I understood from your very much useful opinions and the examples I found on the internet.
Now, as for the first example, on the internet, I gave, I think it is a less common third conditional in which the past simple is used in the if-clause instead of the past perfectas I previously said because the sentence we are discussing implies the meaning of the simple sentence:
"you weren't anything like me after you had/ had had your first baby, so you weren't in shock and dismay...."
which also means:
"I was in shock and dismay after I had/had had my first baby but you weren't so you weren't anything like me after you had/had had your first baby, but if you had been, you would have been in shock and dismay as I was after I had my first baby"
That is what I think about the sentence I gave, so what do you think of my opinion?
Thank you very very much for your much appreciated posts.
Last edited: