[Grammar] Sequence of tenses

[SteM]

From the point of view of the sequence of tenses, please let me know which of the following sentences in correct:
If my boyfriend knew we are in danger, he would surely come to rescue us.
If my boyfriend knew we were in danger, he would surely come to rescue us.

Thank you beforehand!

 

[Rover_KE]

Welcome to the forum, SteM.:-D

This stuff is not my forte, but for a start, this is what I'd say:

If my boyfriend knows we are in danger, he will surely come to rescue us.
If my boyfriend knew we are/were in danger, he would surely come to rescue us.
If my boyfriend had known we were in danger, he would surely have come to rescue us.

Stand by for more knowledgable responses.

 

[SteM]

Thank you, Rover_KE!

The problem is that I have these sentences in the context of a multiple choice exercise. These are options a and c, while option b is:"If my boyfriend knows we are in danger, he would surely come to rescue us.", which is obviously wrong. The correct answer is considered "If my boyfriend knew we are in danger, he would surely come to rescue us.", while I would choose were for sequence of tenses reasons. It sometimes happens with authors of such exercises to be "more Catholic than the Pope", in that they might be both acceptable?

Sorry for being a nuisance!:roll:

 

[kilroy65]

The correct answer is considered "If my boyfriend knew we are in danger, he would surely come to rescue us.", while I would choose were for sequence of tenses reasons.

Although the verb "know" is in its past form, the sentence refers to a hypothetical situation in the present (often called "second conditional"). This might explain the "correct" answer, meaning that "you are still in danger".

On the other hand, you are right to consider the sequence of tenses as another important argument. I think both options are possible, as suggested in post #2.

 

[SteM]

Although the verb "know" is in its past form, the sentence refers to a hypothetical situation in the present (often called "second conditional"). This might explain the "correct" answer, meaning that "you are still in danger".

On the other hand, you are right to consider the sequence of tenses as another important argument. I think both options are possible, as suggested in post #2.

Thank you, kilroy65! Yes, it makes perfect sense. In this case they shouldn't be offered in a multiple choice exercise with one correct answer.

 

[Raymott]

I believe that "If my boyfriend knew we are in danger, he would surely come to rescue us" is wrong.
It's very unnatural. I'm surprised that a native speaker could endorse 'are' as being equally as good as 'were'.
Rover, would you really say this?

 

[engee30]

I'm with Ray on this one.

When talking about an imaginary situation with reference to the time of speaking, you'd normally use the past tense to indicate present unreality. Unlike in reported speech - where it is allowed under some circumstances to use the present tense - you don't actually use it in the that-clause to talk about the facts that may be true at the time of speaking. You keep the tense in parallel with that in the conditional clause.

 

[Rover_KE]

I believe that "If my boyfriend knew we are in danger, he would surely come to rescue us" is wrong.

Rover, would you really say this?

No. You are right.

LATER EDIT: I started off by saying this stuff's not my forte, and I'm glad to get a partial endorsement of my original gut feeling.

 

[engee30]

:up: I too had this approach in mind, Piscean. And I couldn't defend it as being wrong either. I just felt that using the past tense forms in the structure in question was 'more digestible' as far as grammar was concerned.