Had been and had gone

Question

show details 3:38 PM (2 hours ago)

1.If I go to the US, I will visit Ground Zero.

2.If I went to the US, I would visit Ground Zero.

3.If I had gone to the US, I would have visited Ground Zero.

4.If I had been to the US, I would have visited Ground Zero.

I am not sure about my 3^rd and 4^th sentences.

Let us assume that I visited the US last year and didn't visit the White House.

5.If I had been in the White House, I might have seen Obamas.

6.If I had visited the White House, I might have seen Obamas.

7. If I were in the White House, I might have seen Obamas.

How about the 5^th,,6^th and 7^th sentences?

Cool Breeze · Accepted Answer

You need an article before the family: the Obamas. Only #7 is clearly ungrammatical (were). All the others are grammatical but no doubt native speakers have their preferences as to which are more or less unnatural. Even I do!

If I had visited the White House is fine and so would If I had gone to the White House be.

If I were refers to the present time or the future, not the past:

If I were rich, I would buy a Porche. (now)

If I had been rich, I would have bought a Porche.

CB

Noctivagus · Answer

show details 3:38 PM (2 hours ago)

1.If I go to the US, I will visit Ground Zero. correct!

2.If I went to the US, I would visit Ground Zero. correct

3.If I had gone to the US, I would have visited Ground Zero. correct

4.If I had been to the US, I would have visited Ground Zero. correct.

I am not sure about my 3^rd and 4^th sentences. 3 and 4 are both fine, although there is some difference in meaning.

Let us assume that I visited the US last year and didn't visit the White House.

5.If I had been in the White House, I might have seen Obamas.

6.If I had visited the White House, I might have seen Obamas.

7. If I were in the White House, I might have seen Obamas.

How about the 5^th,,6^th and 7^th sentences? 5 and 6 are OK i think, except that you should say "the Obamas" (compare "The Simpsons").

7 isn't ok. "If I were/was in the white house" implies your possibility of being in the White House NOW (Present) (EDIT: Or indeed in the future, as CB pointed out.). You could say:

If I were in the White House, I would be able to see the Obamas.

Dimsumexpress · Answer

# 3 and 4, the pattern is correct. But I think from the sound and naturality perspectives, they can be improved by a slight rewording:

i.e. If I had had the opportunity to visit the US, I (definitely) would have visited Ground Zero.

Simply by listening to the sound of it, ,5,6, and 7 are not good at all. The grammatical pattern for the 3rd conditional is:

If I [had + past participle], I [ would + have + past participle]. Correct me if I am worng. "Might", as far as I know, is the wrong pattern for 3rd conditional. But it may be possible for other "if" patterns. i.e. If he asks me to go to the party with him, I might say yes.

Noctivagus · Answer

It is absolutely true that a little more clarifying infromation like talking about specific opportunities of going to the US would make these sentences more natural sounding. Grammatically they are fine as far as i can see.

There is no reason not to use "might" in these sentences. "Would" would express a certainty, whereas "might" indicates possibility. There is no rule stating that "would" HAS TO follow in a conditional clause, it is only the most common construction.

Dimsumexpress · Answer

This website among others, seemed to follow the 3rd condition by using "would have" in their examples. It's very clear. I have rarely come across any usage with "might have" in a correct context.

http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-conditional_4.htm

Excerpt:

^{Third Conditional: no possibility}

The first conditional and second conditionals talk about the future. With the third conditional we talk about the past. We talk about a condition in the past that did not happen. That is why there is no possibility for this condition. The third conditional is also like a dream, but with no possibility of the dream coming true.

Last week you bought a lottery ticket. But you did not win. :-(

	condition	result
	Past Perfect	WOULD HAVE + Past Participle
If	I had won the lottery	I would have bought a car.

Notice that we are thinking about an impossible past condition. You did not win the lottery. So the condition was not true, and that particular condition can never be true because it is finished. We use the past perfect tense to talk about the impossible past condition. We use WOULD HAVE + past participle to talk about the impossible past result. The important thing about the third conditional is that both the condition and result are impossible now.

Noctivagus · Answer

Why on earth should there be no option to indicate possibility rather than certainty in a clause like this?

Your website was made for learners of English, who are currently focusing on the most common uses of if-clauses.

To quote "English Grammar in Use" (Cambridge University Press) on this topic (Unit38, p.76):

"Could and might are also possible:

If you took more excercise, you might feel better.

If it stopped raining, we could go out."

And in unit 40:

Compare, would have, could have and might have:

If the weather hadn't been so bad:

...we would have gone out.

...we could have gone out (=we would have been able to go out)

we might have gone out (perhaps we would have gone out)."

also consider this website: http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/presentconditional.html

Dimsumexpress · Answer

Hi,

NoctivagusWhy on earth should there be no option to indicate possibility rather than certainty in a clause like this?
Your website was made for learners of English, who are currently focusing on the most common uses of if-clauses.
To quote "English Grammar in Use" (Cambridge University Press) on this topic (Unit38, p.76):
"Could and might are also possible:
If you took more excercise, you might feel better.
If it stopped raining, we could go out."

Sorry, am I missing something? The example I used from the website focused on 3rd conditional only. if the "if clause" is in simple past, I completely agree with you. I follow your comments and agree with everything you have commented on. Forgive me if I am wrong, shouldn't grammar be grammar. it should make any difference whether is it beginner grammar or Cambridge approved, the same rules should apply.

Noctivagus · Answer

Please see my EDIT referring to Uni40 from the same grammar book.

There is also no logical reason to assume that it would not be possible to use might (or indeed could) just because a different tense is used in a Type 3 conditional.

Rotter · Answer

Thanks everybody for all the excellent comments.

3.If I had gone to the US, I would have visited Ground Zero. correct

4.If I had been to the US, I would have visited Ground Zero. correct

Noctivagus says there is a difference in the meaning between the above 2 sentences.

What is it? I can't figure it out.

Noctivagus · Answer

It's just a slight, and also somewhat subjective difference.

3. There was an opportunity somewhere in the past to go to the US but the person didn't take it and thereby also missed a chance to visit Ground Zero.

4. The person has never been to the US (whether they ever had a chance to go is not as clear). The person has no close up experience with Ground Zero, as they have never visited it, but thinks that he or she would definitely have wanted to get this experience.

As i said, this is subjective, but I see that difference between "having been to a place" and "having gone to a plave".

Number 4. is odd, in that you wouldn't hear people say this very often i think. YOu are more likely to hear "If I went to the US, I would visit Ground Zero."

Had been and had gone

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions