the amount of money they would've gotten in damages wouldn't be

[Tony_M]

Greetings,

An ordinary Ukrainian can't sue a big corporation or supermarket chain if one of the latter has infringed on their rights. One of the problems is that 90% of the population is not legally savvy, but the biggest issue or obstacle is that lawyers with extensive experience in such cases always charge a premium for their services. So, the vast majority understands that the amount of money they would've gotten in damages wouldn't be enough to cover their expenditures if they decided to file a lawsuit against a big company.

Is the part in bold grammatically correct and natural?
I wan't the last sentence to be a hypothetical situation.

I've asked this question already:
https://forum.wordreference.com/thr...ages-wouldnt-be-enough.4127886/#post-21218878
I'd like to have a second opinion.

Thank you

 

[jutfrank]

You don't have a good reason to use the perfect aspect. Simpler is better here:

the amount of money they would get in damages wouldn't be enough to cover their expenditure if they decided to file a lawsuit against a big company

 

[Tony_M]

You don't have a good reason to use the perfect aspect. Simpler is better here:

the amount of money they would get in damages wouldn't be enough to cover their expenditure if they decided to file a lawsuit against a big company

Thank you, @jutfrank.
Why can't I use the perfect? I want to have an hypothetical completed action here. As in:

- If you sued a big company and won, the amount of money that you would've gotten wouldn't be enough to cover your expenditures.
Or
- If you sued a big company and won, you wouldn't have enough money to cover your expenditures since you wouldn't have gotten much.

 

[tedmc]

How about the following?

If you win a legal suit against a a big company, the money awarded would not be enough to cover your costs.

It is understood that "costs" refer to legal expenses.

What makes you think that the above is true? Costs are quantifiable and courts would award costs if they are reasonable and justified.

 

[jutfrank]

Why can't I use the perfect? I want to have an hypothetical completed action here.

Well, you could but it's unnecessary, in my opinion. The logic is quite clear in the simpler version that I suggested above. I can't see a good reason to use the perfect to look back at having received the money. Don't you think it makes more sense instead to look forward from the point of receiving the money, given that the damages would normally be awarded first, before you pay your legal team?

 

[teechar]

the amount of money they would've gotten in damages

That refers to the past.

the amount of money they would get in damages

That refers to the future.

Which one do you have in mind?

 

[EngLearner]

If you sued a big company and won, you wouldn't have enough money to cover your expenditures since you wouldn't have gotten much.

Well, you could but it's unnecessary, in my opinion.

If you sued a big company and won, you wouldn't have enough money to cover your expenditures since you wouldn't get much.

Does the simple aspect work in this particular sentence?

 

[jutfrank]

If you sued a big company and won, you wouldn't have enough money to cover your expenditures since you wouldn't get much.

Does the simple aspect work in this particular sentence?

It does, yes, but in this case there's a decent reason to use the retrospective have gotten.

 

[EngLearner]

A. If you sued a big company and won, you wouldn't have enough money to cover your expenses because you wouldn't have gotten much in damages.

B. If you sued a big company and won, you wouldn't get much in damages.

In version A, it's the stative "wouldn't have" that makes the perfect aspect "wouldn't have gotten" correct. Without that stative part (as in version B), the perfect aspect doesn't work, and in version B the correct form would be "wouldn't get". Would you agree with that?

 

[jutfrank]

I agree with that in the main, yes.

 

[Maybo]

A. If you sued a big company and won, you wouldn't have enough money to cover your expenses because you wouldn't have gotten much in damages

Why is “wouldn’t have gotten” correct? What does it have to do with the stative "wouldn't have”? Isn’t the sentence talking about future?

 

[jutfrank]

Isn’t the sentence talking about future?

No, the 'wouldn't have gotten' part is prior to the 'wouldn't have' part. You get awarded the damages first, the result then being that you don't have enough money to pay for your expenses.

 

[EngLearner]

John and Peter are bodyguards. They're waiting for their boss outside a restaurant and watching a couple of other guys loading boxes onto a truck. Suddenly, one of them screams because he's hurt his back. Peter says to John:

If you injured your back like that, the boss would fire you because the quality of your work would fall off.

In this case, "would fire" isn't stative, so the perfect aspect "would have fallen off" wouldn't be used even though the falling off comes before the firing. Is that correct?

 

[jutfrank]

It doesn't seem at all appropriate to me for Peter to use a hypothetical in this situation. Isn't the idea that the injury is real?

In this case, "would fire" isn't stative, so the perfect aspect "would have fallen off" wouldn't be used even though the falling off comes before the firing. Is that correct?

No.

 

[EngLearner]

It doesn't seem at all appropriate to me for Peter to use a hypothetical in this situation. Isn't the idea that the injury is real?

The injury is real, but he's talking about one of the other guys, so if he thinks that it's unlikely that what has just happened to one of them will happen to John, then a hypothetical is justified. That was my reasoning.

 

[jutfrank]

Ah, okay, I understand now.

 

[EngLearner]

John and Peter are bodyguards. They're waiting for their boss outside a restaurant and watching a couple of other guys loading boxes onto a truck. Suddenly, one of them screams because he's hurt his back. Peter says to John:

If you injured your back like that, the boss would fire you because the quality of your work would fall off.

In this case, "would fire" isn't stative, so the perfect aspect "would have fallen off" wouldn't be used even though the falling off comes before the firing. Is that correct?

No.

Either aspect is fine for the bolded part:

If you injured your back like that, the boss would fire you because the quality of your work would [fall off]/[have fallen off].

Do I understand you correctly?

 

[emsr2d2]

I find only "the quality of your work would fall off" natural there. (In reality, I would say "reduce", not "fall off" but that makes no difference to the rest.)

 

[jutfrank]

Either aspect is fine for the bolded part:

If you injured your back like that, the boss would fire you because the quality of your work would [fall off]/[have fallen off].

Do I understand you correctly?

Well, both make sense but if your question is which one you should use, then use the simple version. This is essentially the same point that Tony_M is asking about with regard to the context of post #1. In neither context does there seem to be enough reason to demand the perfect aspect since the logic is clear enough with the simple—the injury comes first, the quality of the work then drops, and then you get fired—this logical sequence is perfectly clear with the simple aspect.

 

[Rover_KE]

USAGE NOTE: The past participle 'gotten' is mostly used in American English. Speakers of British English are generally far more likely to use 'got' in the above examples.