[Grammar] You could be hurt if you stumble [stumbled].

[Silverobama]

Hi.

A BrE speakers wrote 1) "You could be hurt if you stumbled" and then an AmE speaker wrote 2) "You could be hurt if you stumble".

My grammar is not good but here are my thoughts. "stumbled" in the first sentence is past tense, and in 2) is present tense. But in sentence one "could be" is past tense and in 2) "could be" is conditional. So I think both sentences are correct. Please enlighten.

 

[teechar]

Please enlighten me.

I wouldn't worry too much about the structure in that sentence too much. However, I would use "get hurt" in it.

 

[Silverobama]

I wouldn't worry too much about the structure in that sentence too much. However, I would use "get hurt" in it.

I appreciate your help, teechar. Do you mean that both sentences are correct but better with "get hurt"?

 

[PeterCW]

Speakers of colloquial English don't analyse their sentences, they just say what feels natural. I don't have a problem with either sentence although I would be more likely to use the second.

 

[emsr2d2]

Speakers of colloquial English don't analyse their sentences, they just say what feels natural. I don't have a problem with either sentence although I would be more likely to use the second.

I'm also a BrE speaker, and I'm more likely to use "stumbled" with a conditional. It's personal preference though.

 

[jutfrank]

On the surface, this looks like a difference in kind of conditionality. The BrE speaker is imagining an unreal condition and the AmE speaker a real one. Thus the tense difference of the verb stumble.

More context would make that much clearer, however.