[Grammar] I would have called Lisa if I'd had her number

[BADLUCKMAX]

I would have called Lisa if I'd had her number

The above sentence is an example sentence from a grammar book. I'm confused about the "I'd had..." in 'if' clause.

Why is it using "I'd had" rather than "I had" there?

Hope for answers, thanks!

 

[Tdol]

It's following traditional patterns for third conditionals, but I had works too for me.

 

[emsr2d2]

If the opening were "I would call Lisa" (present), it would end "if I had her number" (past simple). However, the opening is "I would have called Lisa" (present perfect), so the second half needs to be "if I had had" (past perfect).

Think about the order of things happening. Having Lisa's number would have to happen before making the call, so that clause needs to reflect that by the use of the different tense.

 

[BADLUCKMAX]

If the opening were "I would call Lisa" (present), it would end "if I had her number" (past simple). However, the opening is "I would have called Lisa" (present perfect), so the second half needs to be "if I had had" (past perfect).

Think about the order of things happening. Having Lisa's number would have to happen before making the call, so that clause needs reflect that by the use of the different tense.

I think I have understood! Many thanks to your satisfactory explanation.

 

[5jj]

It's following traditional patterns for third conditionals, but I had works too for me.

It does for me, too.

I would have called Lisa if I'd had her number.
I did not call Lisa because I did not have her number.

I would have called Lisa if I had her number.
I did not call Lisa because I don't have her number.

 

[TheParser]

Why is it using "I'd had" rather than "I had" there?

NOT A TEACHER

1. I feel that many Americans (especially younger ones) would think it strange to say, for example, "I would have called you yesterday if I had had time."

a. They might even chuckle (laugh gently) and say, "That's bad English, dude!"

2. Many (most?) speakers simply feel it sounds more natural to use only one "had."

3. For those people who know their grammar and insist on "had had," the first "had" will not attract so much attention if one uses the contraction: "I would have bought it if I'd had the money."

 

[emsr2d2]

Using the full "I had had" in BrE is quite unlikely and might even lead to some mickey-taking. However, using "I'd had" would not be remotely worthy of comment. It's what I'd use.

 

[GoesStation]

Using the full "I had had" in BrE is quite unlikely and might even lead to some mickey-taking. However, using "I'd had" would not be remotely worthy of comment. It's what I'd use.

It's the same in American English. I agree, though, that an increasing number of Americans would use the past simple.

 

[jutfrank]

A lot of young American speakers would also use ... if I would've had, which I can't stand and would consider wrong.

So much so, in fact, that this is now becoming quite global. There are still not too many native British English speakers who do this but it is very common among young high-level non-native speakers, who have obviously picked it up from US speakers.

 

[emsr2d2]

I agree that it's spreading. I have heard things like "If I would have won the lottery ..." or similar a lot in the last few years.

 

[5jj]

If I'd of known that, I'd of stopped marking it wrong.

;-)

 

[jutfrank]

If I'd of known that, I'd of stopped marking it wrong.

;-)

By 'liking' your post, I really mean that I hate it. (Shudder)

 

[GoesStation]

If I'd of known that, I'd of stopped marking it wrong.

;-)

Learners should note that 5jj's post uses mangled English to create an ironic effect. This post apologizes for spoiling it. :-?

 

[emsr2d2]

It's useful for learners to know, though, that they might well see/hear "would of/could of/should of" from native speakers. It is one of the most common errors in our language. It's more common in written English, from people who hear "would've/could've/should've" and genuinely don't understand that they are contractions of "would have/could have/should have", so they write the "of" version. When spoken, they do sound like the second half could be "of". However, a smaller minority even very clearly say "of" instead of the contraction. As you can imagine, it drives a lot of us round the bend!