0
Sft M Posted 11 years ago
Grammar
2nd conditional
Mario would die if he played the game.
and
Mario would die if he had played the game.
What's the difference between the meaning of these two sentences?
Is the second one wrong?
Does the main clause "Mario would die"suggest future tense? Then how the subordinate clause can be past tense?
and
Mario would die if he had played the game.
What's the difference between the meaning of these two sentences?
Is the second one wrong?
Does the main clause "Mario would die"suggest future tense? Then how the subordinate clause can be past tense?
Top answer
Mario would have died if he had played the game. html Mario would die if he played/plays the game. html
- Mario would have died if he had played the game.
- html Mario would die if he played/plays the game.
- html
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
4 Answers
0
Mario would have died if he had played the game. (past, unreal condition) http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/pastconditional.html
Mario would die if he played/plays the game. (present, future, hypothetical condition)
Mario would die if he played/plays the game. (present, future, hypothetical condition)
00
sft MMario would die if he played the game.This is a second conditional. It applies to present and/or future time.
______________
Here's another one:
Mario would have died if he had played the game.
This is a third conditional. It applies to past time. Because it is past, we know that Mario did not play the game
00
Your explanation is really helpful. It takes away my confusion. Thanks! 
00
Related Questions