Your condition would be much worse if your leg were amputated.

[Tan Elaine]

A friend of mine broke his leg in a traffic accident.

He was sad. One of our mutual friends consoled him, saying, "You have not lost your leg. Your condition would be much worse if your leg were amputated." He felt better on hearing this.

I wonder whether our friend should have said, "...Your condition would have been much worse if your leg had been amputated."

Thanks.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I think the intended meaning was 'Your condition would be much worse if your leg had been amputated.'

 

[Tarheel]

Almost. Instead say:

Your condition would be much worse if your leg had been amputated.

See?

 

[Tarheel]

Not fair, Matthew! You type faster than I can.

;-)

 

[Matthew Wai]

I can touch-type. Can you?

 

[Tarheel]

I can touch-type. Can you?

Not on this thing I'm using. I have to punch one key at a time. (While it's literally true that you can type faster than I can, I was, of course, kidding.)

 

[Tdol]

How about Things would be (much/far) worse if you'd had your leg amputated or It could be worse/It's not so bad- you could have had your leg amputated? In many cases, someone's condition could be better after amputation.

I can touch-type. Can you?

I type with boxing gloves on.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I was, of course, kidding.

I knew, of course.

I type with boxing gloves on.

Kidding too?

 

[Tarheel]

Yes, he really does type with boxing gloves on. (Now who's kidding?)

;-)

 

[Matthew Wai]

You.