Conditional Tense

Question

I'm confused. Which is correct. Tom is not rich but he likes fast cars. 1: If Tom had more money, he would buy a fast car. 2: If Tom had more money, he would have bought a fast car.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

The first is correct.
The second is normally "If Tom had had more money, he would have bought a fast car", but your example illustrates a common substitute used in everyday speech.

The first focuses on what Tom may do in the future (depending whether he gets more money!).
The second focuses on what Tom did not do in the past (because he didn't have enough money!).

Hope that helped.

CJ

Just the truth · Answer

I'm confused.
Which is correct.
Tom is not rich but he likes fast cars.

1: If Tom had more money, he would buy a fast car.
2: If Tom had more money, he would have bought a fast car.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Both are correct. There's no reason to expect that in every situation, ENLs thoughts must parallel the errant rules of concord as put forward by prescriptivists. That they don't is abundantly clear.

In number 2, in the first part, the speaker is describing what the condition is now as it relates to Tom's 'money state', ie. "Tom doesn't have money now.

2: Tom doesn't have any money now, but if he did [have money now], he would have bought [a] that fast car.

CalifJim · Answer

2: Tom doesn't have any money now, but if he did [have money now], he would have bought [a] that fast car.

JT:
You're getting as good as Mr. Pendantic in the humour department!!!

Jim

Just the truth · Answer

I think you're looking at this in too strict a sense, Jim. And you're also not explaining your position very well but that's another issue.

The present simple tense shows the condition around NOW. It's completely reasonable to assume that "not having money right 'now' entails that Tom didn't have it at A POTENTIAL time of buying a car.

Tom doesn't have money now [present simple] = If Tom had money

in the sense that we know "Tom is not flush these days". "These days" include not just now and the future but the same time he thought of buying [potential] a car or the actual time he at least checked it out.

CalifJim · Answer

JT,

You could be right about the "too strict" part, but even under your interpretation the sentence bothers me, which will become more clear in a short while.

Nevertheless, I can accept the possibility of the following, which I think fits right in with your point:

If Tom had half a brain, he would have bought that car.

Here we are saying that Tom, because of his general failure to recognize good deals when he sees them (part of his character "now" and "then" and "always" - "eternal present"), did not buy the car ("then") -- that he would have bought it, however, if he were smarter about purchasing cars. He didn't buy it then because he doesn't have (even) half a brain and never did, i.e., he isn't (and wasn't) that smart a person.

I don't sense that same "eternal present" idea in "If Tom had more money", because having sufficient money is not the sort of thing that is part of a person's character or anything that can be thought of as "eternal present". It's a very time-dependent situation. Today you have enough money, tomorrow you don't. Further, the having of a sufficient amount of money has to occur at the time of the buying, not later.

Now if you want to change the original sentence slightly to suggest that Tom is/was rich ("eternal present"), then we might have,

If Tom were a rich man, he would have bought that car.

which sounds all right to me.

But I just can't get my brain around,

If Tom now had/has enough money to buy the car (and he doesn't), that means he would have bought it (then), but he didn't buy it then because he doesn't have enough money to buy it now.
[Side bar: I can't see how you don't find this hilariously funny. It's an absurd string of words!]

I suppose it is my failure to wrap my brain around "didn't buy then, because not enough money now" that leads me to interpret the whole sentence in the past: He didn't buy then because not enough money then. So to me, as I've said, "if Tom had" is just a variant of "if Tom had had". The only way I can understand the sentence as you interpret it is through mental gymnastics -- a forced reading. But if it works for you, that's cool.

Jim

Just the truth · Answer

2: Tom doesn't have any money now, but if he did [have money now], he would have bought [a] that fast car.

JT: You've misread [have money now], probably my fault. The "have money now" doesn't reflect a sudden burst of wealth; it represents the usual condition that Tom finds himself in, that is, a state of poorness.

Tom doesn't have any money now, nor does he ever, but if he did [have money now], he would have bought [a] that fast car.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If Tom had half a brain, he would have bought that car.

Here we are saying that Tom, because of his general failure to recognize good deals when he sees them (part of his character "now" and "then" and "always" - "eternal present"), ...

I don't sense that same "eternal present" idea in "If Tom had more money", because having sufficient money is not the sort of thing that is part of a person's character or anything that can be thought of as "eternal present". It's a very time-dependent situation. Today you have enough money, tomorrow you don't. Further, the having of a sufficient amount of money has to occur at the time of the buying, not later.

Jim, not the "eternal present"; that's more for things like the Sun, etc. There are millions of people who go thru life being "always poor". It is a common condition. Some, many people are born into it, and never escape it. It has exactly the same potential for satisfying those conditions needed to be the habitual present as that of "if Tom had half a brain".

Now if you want to change the original sentence slightly to suggest that Tom is/was rich ("eternal present"), then we might have,

If Tom were a rich man, he would have bought that car.

which sounds all right to me.

Changing the meaning doesn't help you address the grammatical issues. The original wasn't about Tom being a rich man. It was about Tom being in an habitual state of poorness.

CalifJim · Answer

Whatever. I'm sticking with my original response, which I think is succinct and accurate, and a very fine-and-dandy way of answering the question:

The first is correct.
The second is normally "If Tom had had more money, he would have bought a fast car", but your example illustrates a common substitute used in everyday speech.

The first focuses on what Tom may do in the future (depending whether he gets more money!).
The second focuses on what Tom did not do in the past (because he didn't have enough money!).

Hope that helped.

CJ

PS.

The original was:

If Tom had more money, ...

My take on 'having more money' differs from yours. I don't see this as having anything to do with being in a habitual state of poorness.

I am not "habitually" poor; yet, there are many things I would do differently "if I had more money"!

CJ

Melanie · Answer

Thanks to all of you for the help.
I see the difference now.

Just the truth · Answer

My take on 'having more money' differs from yours. I don't see this as having anything to do with being in a habitual state of poorness.

I am not "habitually" poor; yet, there are many things I would do differently "if I had more money"!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

JT: While we can certainly disagree, ie. interpret differently on any one language situation, Jim, the fact remains that this structure can just as easily point to Tom's general condition.

Conditional Tense

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions