a very confusing sentence concerning the third conditional of "if"

[man of manners]

hi
I have a very confusing question.
choose the correct answer and provide evidence if possible:
​

If he (won/had won) the cup after he had played the match, I'd have been happy with him
​

...about this sentence, I'll make it easy for you:

I'll simplify the answer and you only need to show your approval or disapproval towards my answer - and of course if you have a new answer, it's welcome.

My answer is "won" and the evidence is just a logical explanation.

Note the following:

the past perfect after "if" is the Past Perfect Subjunctive but it's not a tense. It's ,in fact, an unreal tense and it indicates a situation different from what had already happened.

In usual if-clauses, we use only one verb in the if-clause but in such sentences we are using a conjunction that requires a certain sequence of tenses that cannot be ignored, so this sequence of tenses must be applied even in the if-clause, and the past perfect doesn't necessarily follow the "if" conjunction immediately as long as another sequence of tenses must be applied.

Also, we must notice that the conjunction "after" and its two sentences are all part of the if-clause so we haven't broken any rules as we have already used the past perfect - not immediately after "if" as usual but this time after "after" which is part of the if-clause.

I hope I have limited the possible answers now.
Thanks in advance!

 

[GoesStation]

I'm afraid your sentence needs the past perfect.

 

[Raymott]

"If he (won/had won) the cup after he had played the match, I'd have been happy with him"

My answer is "had won". "... after he had played the match" isn't relevant. The question reduces to:
"I would have been happy with him, if he (won/had won) the match. The only possible choice is "had won".

 

[man of manners]

Thanks very much. I appreciate your answers.
But this ignored the sequence of tenses with "after". Shouldn't only the first action be used in the past perfect?
Please, I need some explanation.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I think the explanation is that the sequence of tenses can simply be ignored because 'after' has already established the time sequence.

 

[man of manners]

I think the explanation is that the sequence of tenses can simply be ignored because 'after' has already established the time sequence.

But as far as I know, the past perfect is only used after "after" not in the main clause .If you have any evidence, please, provide it

 

[Matthew Wai]

If he had won the cup after he played the match, I'd have been happy with him.
After he played the match, if he had won the cup, I'd have been happy with him.

 

[man of manners]

I agree, Piscean.
but what should we use in the if-clause?

 

[man of manners]

If he had won the cup after he played the match, I'd have been happy with him.
After he played the match, if he had won the cup, I'd have been happy with him.

thanks for replying, Matthew
you now changed the past perfect after "after" into past simple, then paraphrased the sentence .That is somewhat convincing but I want the original sentence with the past perfect after "after " .Will using the past perfect after "after " change the meaning ?

 

[emsr2d2]

Man of manners, please edit your posts so that every sentence starts with a capital letter and remove the spaces before full stops and question marks. There should be a space after every full stop and question mark.

 

[man of manners]

The past perfect for an irrealis past situation.

But this broke the rule of "after" because the first action always comes after it not before it. This choice made the sentence wrong.
Why don't we consider "The past perfect for an irrealis past situation" is what follows "after " -not what comes before it- and we know that "after "and its subordinate and main clause are part of the if-clause?

 

[man of manners]

Matthew and I have both said that you can use either the past perfect or the past simple because 'after' establishes the sequence of events. There is no difference in meaning.

I totally agree with you both concerning this point but what confuses me is that what tense we can use in the if-clause not to change the sequence of tenses with "after" and use the correct tense in the if-clause at the same time.

 

[man of manners]

The sentence is not wrong. The time clause (beginning with 'after' is irrelevant to the conditional sentence), as Raymott tod you

why is it irrelevant? Isn't it part of the if-clause?

 

[man of manners]

A SIMPLE QUESTION

Why don't we consider "The past perfect for an irrealis past situation" is what follows "after " -not what comes before it- and we know that "after "and its subordinate and main clause are part of the if-clause?

 

[Matthew Wai]

why is it irrelevant ? isn't it part of the if-clause?

Perhaps the following goes to show that it is not part of the if-clause.

After he played the match, if he had won the cup, I'd have been happy with him.

 

[man of manners]

I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

Why is that?
What has happened? We are discussing.
I asked you the question above but you didn't answer.

 

[man of manners]

Matthew, I'm convinced but still confused.
can you answer this?
"Why don't we consider "The past perfect for an irrealis past situation" is what follows "after " -not what comes before it- and we know that "after "and its subordinate and main clause are part of the if-clause?"

 

[Matthew Wai]

The after-clause is not part of the if-clause because the former is a real past situation and the latter is an unreal one.
Do you know the difference between 'real' and 'unreal'?

 

[man of manners]

The after-clause is not part of the if-clause because the former is a real past situation and the latter is an unreal one.
Do you know the difference between 'real' and 'unreal'?

I do know, Matthew but this is an opinion. Why didn't you answer my question above?

 

[Matthew Wai]

"Why don't we consider "The past perfect for an irrealis past situation" is what follows "after " -not what comes before it

Because the after-clause refers to a real past situation. 'He had played the match' is a real event.

we know that "after "and its subordinate and main clause are part of the if-clause .?"

If I have correctly understood Piscean's post#14, neither the after-clause nor the main clause is part of the if-clause.