would really be - or - really would have been

[vic999]

You should have explained your mistakes. That would really be consistent with your statement.

You should have explained your mistakes. That really would have been consistent with your statement.

Which option is correct or better, please?

 

[emsr2d2]

1. You should have explained your mistakes. That would really be consistent with your statement.
2. You should have explained your mistakes. That really would have been consistent with your statement.

Which option is correct or better, please?

I'd use 2. However, I'd remove "really" - it doesn't add anything.

 

[vic999]

I'd use 2. However, I'd remove "really" - it doesn't add anything.

thank you so much

In my case, a person repeatedly claimed to be explaining own mistakes, when in fact there were no real explanations ------- is using "really" useful as an emphasis? Or should I still remove it, please?
.

 

[emsr2d2]

Thank you so much.

In my case, a person repeatedly claimed to be explaining their own mistakes, when in fact there were no real explanations. No need for a string of dashes here Is using "really" useful as an emphasis no question mark here or should I still remove it? please?
.

Note my corrections above. Part of the problem here is that I don't understand what you mean by "That would have been consistent with your statement". What statement?

From what you've said in post #3, I would expect something like "You need to explain the reason for your mistakes. You haven't done so yet".

 

[jutfrank]

I don't understand what you mean, either. There's currently little coherence between your two sentences. Can you give us more context?

 

[vic999]

I don't understand what you mean, either. There's currently little coherence between your two sentences. Can you give us more context?

Thank you so much.

I am trying to explain. Sorry for my English.

Explaination:
a) a man made some obvious mistakes. b) then he was caught by others, and three times he gave excuses and some ridiculous explanations of his mistakes. c) he then repeatedly claimed to have explained his mistakes, when in fact there were no real explanations, or his excuses were meaningless, or simply BS.

My question is about using would really be - or - really would have been - or may be something else.

1. You should have explained your mistakes. That would really be consistent with your statement (of explaining your mistakes).
2. You should have explained your mistakes. That really would have been consistent with your statement (of explaining your mistakes).

What would be the best final two sentences, please?

Thank you.

 

[emsr2d2]

Do you mean something like "If you had actually explained why you made those mistakes, it would make sense for you to now claim that you have explained them"?

 

[Kontol]

I would use 2. However, I would remove "really" - it doesn't add anything.

I'm wondering why you use "would" here? Why not say "I use 2" or "I remove "really?"

 

[tedmc]

I'm wondering why you use "would" here? Why not say "I use 2" or "I remove "really?"

emsr2d2 used "would" to mean she is likely to say that, given the scenario.

 

[tedmc]

The person's explanations for his mistakes are not genuine and so, are not acceptable.

 

[emsr2d2]

I'm wondering why you use "would" here? Why not say "I use 2" or "I remove "really?"

Using the present tense would suggest that it's a habitual action. You have to look at it as a type of conditional. "I'd use 2" is a way of saying "If I wrote that sentence, I would use 2".

 

[vic999]

Using the present tense would suggest that it's a habitual action. You have to look at it as a type of conditional. "I'd use 2" is a way of saying "If I wrote that sentence, I would use 2".

emsr2d2, tedmc thank you.

1. If you had actually explained why you made those mistakes, it would make sense for you to now claim that you have explained them. (I like this one)
2. You should have explained your mistakes. That would have been consistent with your statement.
3. You should have explained your mistakes. That would be consistent with your claim.
4. Your explanations for your mistakes are not genuine and so, are not acceptable.
5. Your explanations for your mistakes were not genuine and so, are not acceptable.

Assuming that the person to whom it is addressed knows what it is about, which option is better?

Or which one would you, emsr2d2, tedmc have used yourself?

 

[5jj]

Or which one would you, Mr./Ms. emsr2d2, tedmc have used yourself?

We just address people by their usernames here. We don't us 'Mr, Ms' etc.

 

[vic999]

We just address people by their usernames here. We don't us 'Mr, Ms' etc.

thank you. I've corrected it.

 

[Rover_KE]

Thank you. I've corrected it.

 

[emsr2d2]

Can you explain what these "mistakes" were?

 

[vic999]

Can you explain what these "mistakes" were? ----------- It's a long story

If you had actually explained why you made those mistakes, it would make sense for you to now claim that you have explained them. ---------- I used this one.

Thank you all.