Could have

[Newbie-eng]

Hi, I have below sentences



First// I could have been there on time if I had left home earlier.


Second// I could have phoned, but I preferred to talk to you personally.


Why did we use had in the first sentence. Can I omit it and say only left without the auxiliary had.

Why in the second sentence did we use only simple past preffered. Not had preferred.




Another question

You could have been killed if you had not moved.

Or

You could have been killed if you did not move.

Are both correct?

Big thanks

 

[5jj]

The first and third sentences use the past perfect for an unreal condition.

 

[emsr2d2]

Hi, I have below sentences Please look at the sentences below.

First// 1. I could have been there on time if I had left home earlier.
Second// 2. I could have phoned, but I preferred to talk to you personally.

Why did we use is "had" used in the first sentence? Can I omit it and say only "left" without the auxiliary had?
Why in the second sentence did we use only is the simple past preferred used in the second sentence, rather than "had preferred"?

Note my changes to the layout and my corrections to the first half of your post above. I ran out of time to do the rest.

 

[White Hat]

I could have been there on time if I had left home earlier.
I could have phoned, but I preferred to talk to you personally.

Why did we use had in the first sentence. Can I omit it and say only left without the auxiliary had.
Why in the second sentence did we use only simple past preferred. Not had preferred.

The difference is that in the first sentence 'left' comes after 'if'. Try rephrasing the sentence as 'I can be there on time if I leave home earlier'. But here the person is talking about the past. 'I could have been there on time if I had left home earlier' implies that the person was late because they had not left home early enough that day.

 

[White Hat]

You could have been killed if you had not moved.
or
You could have been killed if you did not move.

Are both correct?

Only the first one is correct. You can, likewise, rephrase it as 'You can be killed if you do not move'. But, again, the person is talking here about the past. That's why they need to use both 'have been' and 'had' (after 'if'). This topic (perfect modal verbs) is covered in detail here.

 

[Newbie-eng]

The difference is that in the first sentence 'left' comes after 'if'. Try rephrasing the sentence as 'I can be there on time if I leave home earlier'. But here the person is talking about the past. 'I could have been there on time if I had left home earlier' implies that the person was late because they had not left home early enough that day.

Thank you very much

Why in the second sentence "had" is not used?

Preferred not had preferred
I could have phoned, but I preferred to talk to you personally.

 

[White Hat]

There's no need to use 'had' there. But if you use 'if', as in 'I would have phoned you if you had asked me to use the phone', then you need to use 'had'. That's the way these kind of constructions typically work in English.

 

[5jj]

I could have phoned, but I preferred to talk to you personally.

Why in the second sentence is "had" is not used?

"Preferred" not "had preferred":
I could have phoned, but I preferred to talk to you personally.

The speaker did prefer this. It's not a hypothetical condition.

 

[Tdol]

You could have been killed if you did not move.

This doesn't work, but You could have been killed, but you moved does work as it's no longer hypothetical.

 

[Tarheel]

Why in the second sentence "had" is not used?

Say: "Why in the second sentence is 'had' not used?" Or: "Why is 'had' not used in the second sentence?" Or: "Why isn't 'had' used in the second sentence?"