Had the plastering not been bodged, the wall wouldn't have to have been recoated.
Good morning.
I am familiar with the third conditional, however, the usage of 'have to' has taken me by surprise recently...
Please have a look at the following sentence:
Had the plastering not been bodged, the wall wouldn't have to have been recoated.
Is it correct?
If we don't use 'have to', then the sentence is a regular third conditional and looks as follows:
Had the plastering not been bodged, the wall wouldn't have been recoated.
Which is of course grammatically correct, but the meaning is different.
Top answer
Reegis Had the plastering not been bodged, the wall wouldn't have to have been recoated. Is it correct? No, for the meaning that is no doubt intended, it should be: Had the plastering not been bodged, the wall wouldn't have had to be recoated.
- Reegis Had the plastering not been bodged, the wall wouldn't have to have been recoated.
- Is it correct?
- No, for the meaning that is no doubt intended, it should be: Had the plastering not been bodged, the wall wouldn't have had to be recoated.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
ReegisHad the plastering not been bodged, the wall wouldn't have to have been recoated.
Is it correct?
No, for the meaning that is no doubt intended, it should be:
Had the plastering not been bodged, the wall wouldn't have had to be recoated.
0
Related Questions