Boris Tatarenko
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2013
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Russian
- Home Country
- Russian Federation
- Current Location
- Russian Federation
I'm doing an exercise from a widely known grammar book called "A Practical English Grammar. Exercises 2" by Martinet and Thomson and I've come across several interesting sentences about conditionals in which I made mistakes.
(At the cinema)
Ann: Don't worry. They get married in the end.
Mary: Then you've seen it before! If you (tell) me that we (go) to something else.
The only words that we can actually fill the gaps with are "had told" and "would have gone" or "could have gone" (and they're correct). But I do not quite understand the meaning of this conversation. Especially I do not understand the bold part. Is it a specific way you show your irritation and dissatisfaction :roll:? I mean the structure "If you + the past perfect, we "would have + part participle".
Where are grammar experts :-o?
(At the cinema)
Ann: Don't worry. They get married in the end.
Mary: Then you've seen it before! If you (tell) me that we (go) to something else.
The only words that we can actually fill the gaps with are "had told" and "would have gone" or "could have gone" (and they're correct). But I do not quite understand the meaning of this conversation. Especially I do not understand the bold part. Is it a specific way you show your irritation and dissatisfaction :roll:? I mean the structure "If you + the past perfect, we "would have + part participle".
Where are grammar experts :-o?