0
Anonymous Posted 17 years ago
Grammar

Conditional Drives Me Nuts!!!

Could someone PLEASE explain in detail this conditional sentence that I read in a biography about a famous German leader. I understand its meaning. But I'd like someone to explain the grammar: If that end (he wanted to unify Germany) COULD BE ACHIEVED without war, he WAS PREPARED to do without (a war). Is this an example of the so-called 2nd conditional? I guess the 1st conditional would be: If he can achieve it without war, he is prepared to do so. The author is describing something that happened 150 years ago. I guess the author did not want to use the 3rd conditional. I guess he wanted to take us back to those days and let us know what he (Bismarck) was thinking. Thanks for any light you can throw on this.
  

Top answer

Anonymous If that end (he wanted to unify Germany) COULD BE ACHIEVED without war, he WAS PREPARED to do without (a war). Strange. I see nothing odd in the sentence.

— Cool Breeze

  • Anonymous If that end (he wanted to unify Germany) COULD BE ACHIEVED without war, he WAS PREPARED to do without (a war).
  • Strange.
  • I see nothing odd in the sentence.
  • As I understand it, both could and was are simply in the past tense.
  • CB
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

2 Answers
0
Anonymous If that end (he wanted to unify Germany) COULD BE ACHIEVED without war, he WAS PREPARED to do without (a war).
Strange. I see nothing odd in the sentence. As I understand it, both could and was are simply in the past tense.

CB
0
0
Thank you, Cool Breeze.
0

Related Questions