if you worked at Rolls Royce and used a word like handling or sporty, you'd've been fired.

[Tony_M]

Greetings,

Grosser vs. Corniche: Old Car Challenge Part 1 - Top Gear - BBC, video, 2:53

James May: In fact, I like to believe that if you worked at Rolls Royce in the 1970s, and you ever used a word like handling or sporty, you'd've been fired.

Why is it not "had worked"?

Thank you

 

[emsr2d2]

Did the other person actually work at Rolls Royce in the 1970s?

 

[Tony_M]

Did the other person actually work at Rolls Royce in the 1970s?

There is no other person. They review two different cars.

 

[emsr2d2]

There is no other person. They are reviewing two different cars.

Ah, so he used "you" to mean "one". In that case, I think "if you'd worked at" would have been better. Bear in mind that when people are speaking, they don't always consider the grammatical correctness of their utterances.

 

[jutfrank]

Why is it not "had worked"?

Because it's a real past condition, not an unreal one. That's how the thought starts off, at least.

 

[Tony_M]

Because it's a real past condition, not an unreal one.

What do you mean by that?

 

[jutfrank]

Real past conditionals don't use the past perfect, just the simple past.

 

[Tony_M]

Real past conditionals don't use the past perfect, just the simple past.

Why is "would have been fired" in the result clause?

 

[jutfrank]

Why is "would have been fired" in the result clause?

Because it's the result. Why would you think it isn't?

Tell me in greater depth what's puzzling you here.

 

[Tony_M]

Because it's the result. Why would you think it isn't?

Tell me in greater depth what's puzzling you here.

When we have something like this:
A: John flushed an important database yesterday, but the manager let him get away with it.
B: The times are different now. If people did something like this 5 years ago, they would've been fired.

Most native speakers tell me that I need to use one of these:
- If/when/whenever people did something like this 5 years ago, they would be fired. - repeated action in the past;
- If people had done something like this 5 years ago, they would've been fired. - unreal/counterfactual situation in the past.
But when James May uses his sentence, which, I assume, is not that different from mine, everybody tells me the sentence is fine and natural.

 

[jutfrank]

But what I'm claiming is that James' condition clause is not counterfactual, which is why he uses 'worked' instead of 'had worked'. Whether he then switches from real to unreal before he gets to the result clause I'm not entirely sure but I'm convinced enough that that's the case, thereby producing a mixed sentence. It's not uncommon for speakers to drift from real to unreal in unplanned speech. If it's true what I'm claiming, the result clause is not actually correct, since it ought to be you were fired.

Does that address your question?

I'd also point out that I do believe there is an argument to be made for an interpretation where the condition clause is counterfactual. Also, I think I can make a weakish argument that the use of 'would've been' in the result clause is justified. But I don't want to make either of those arguments unless you really want me to. I think my first explanation is better.

 

[Tony_M]

Does that address your question?

Not quite.
Thank you very much, @jutfrank.

Pawn Stars Do America: Star Wars Legos Hide a Valuable Secret (Season 1)

- This looks like it was made in 2019, and it would've been the 20-year celebration for the Star Wars and Lego collaboration going on, and to think that they did 700 collabs in, you know, 20 years, it's quite a lot, and this one would be one of them.

The same type is implied:
If it was indeed made in 2019, then it would have been part of the 20 year collaboration celebration.

 

[jutfrank]

Without being able to hear the sentence being uttered (Did you mean to post a link to the audio?), my initial interpretation there is that it's an unreal conditional, with the thought completed like this:

This looks like it was made in 2019, and [if it were,] it would've been the 20-year celebration ...

This is not an easy one to interpret, since there's no articulated if-clause. I think hearing it might help a bit.

(I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, by the way, Tony. What do you think it means? Do you think it's another example of a drift from real to unreal?)

 

[Tony_M]

(I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, by the way, Tony. What do you think it means? Do you think it's another example of a drift from real to unreal?)

Yes, it's like guessing. Video.
This "would've been" is not counterfactual or unreal.

 

[jutfrank]

Ah, okay, now I've heard it I've got a much better idea of what's going on.

There's no conditional here at all. He's using 'would' in a completely different way. It's amazing how being able to hear and see context helps interpretation. As soon as I saw the video, I instantly knew what he meant.

This is a use of 'would' to provide what I call an 'authoritative answer' or sometimes an 'expert' answer. It's an interesting and not uncommon use that you often hear on this very site. Here's a very simplistic (and quite inauthentic!) similar example:

A: What's the capital of Botswana?
B: That would be Gaborone.

The man in the video is stating an informative fact (it was the 20-year celebration) through his own personal expertise.

I've always thought this use of 'would' is notable in that it sounds speculative where actually it's quite the opposite.

 

[Tony_M]

This is a use of 'would' to provide what I call an 'authoritative answer' or sometimes an 'expert' answer.

Why can't I use the same approach in a conditional sentence?
- If an employee made such a mistake in the past (real condition), they would've been fired (autoritative opinion based on my own experience).

 

[jutfrank]

You can. One might imagine that you're a historian or something.

Obviously, that's not actually the case with the original James May utterance, though.

 

[Tony_M]

You can. One might imagine that you're a historian or something.

Obviously, that's not actually the case with the original James May utterance, though.

Okay. I don't understand anything now.

 

[jutfrank]

I thought we'd got there! Try asking again. What is it that doesn't make sense?

 

[Tony_M]

I thought we'd got there! Try asking again. What is it that doesn't make sense?

Thank you for your patience and time, @jutfrank.

Let me take another stab at this:

Example 1

James May: In fact, I like to believe that if you worked at Rolls Royce in the 1970s, and you ever used a word like handling or sporty, you'd've been fired.

Worked and used - open/real condition, May is saying if it's really true that you worked and used those words, you would've been fired. As I understand it, May does want to mix a few different things together: things like authoritative/expert opinion, conditional vibe (since it's a conditional sentence), and expected behavior of Rolls Royce managers and executives. "Would've been fired" sounds better than just "were fired".

Example 2

Pawn Stars Do America: Star Wars Legos Hide a Valuable Secret (Season 1)

- This looks like it was made in 2019, and it would've been the 20-year celebration for the Star Wars and Lego collaboration going on, and to think that they did 700 collabs in, you know, 20 years, it's quite a lot, and this one would be one of them.

Would've been - expert opinion. Chum knows something about Lego, and he's expressing his thoughts using this construction. When I hear this phrase, it reminds me of "it's bound to have been" or "it's very likely to have been one of those special series of Lego in 2019."

Example 3

Now, I asked this question a few days ago:

A: Have you ever heard of Alex Zalevich?
B: Yes, he was a fashion designer many years ago. His collections were bizarre, eccentric, and funny at the same time.
A: That's right; his imagination was good, but he would never have worn any of his masterpieces...at least in public.

This example is mine. I would say that here A's expressing their authoritative opinion, A doesn't want to appear 100% sure, but I reckon this use of "would never have worn" is similar to Example 2; it's like saying, "it's very highly unlikely that he wore something like this."

And finally:

Example 4

Today at school, I had to talk about medicine and its development after WWII:
I was discussing this topic with one of my classmates:

Classmate: Soviet doctors definitely gained a lot of experience during WWII. It was extremely important in Vietnam.
Me: I'm not sure about that. The Vietnam War, as we know it, was almost 20 years after WWII; the first military campaign was in 1965. For medicine, it's a lot of time. Some methods and techniques would've become obsolete by that time. I reckon they would've developed a lot of new ones by the time the Soviet Union sent their troops and medical personnel to Vietnam.

I could've used the past perfect, but I decided to go with "would've become" and "would've developed". I wanted to sound less certain and make a tentative suggestion. Do these work in this context?

What do you think? Is my understanding correct?

P.S.

If you've read all this, you're nothing short of a hero.

Thank you again.