Have you seen "Interstellar"?

Question

The movie has a scene where Cooper talks to his daughter's school teacher who believes that all machines (i.e., technologies) are useless.

Specifically, Cooper says the following:

You know, one of those "useless machines" they used to make was called an MRI.

And if we had any of those left, the doctors would have been able to find the cyst in my wife's brain before she died, instead of afterwards. Then she would have been the one sitting here listening to this instead of me, which would have been a good thing 'cause she was always the calmer one.

In other words, his wife had a cyst in her brain and died from it, because no MRIs were available to scan her brain.

In this context, I have the following questions:

(1) Why did he say "if we had any of those left" instead of "if we had had any of those left"? (Here, "those" refer to the MRIs, and he was talking about the time before his wife died, which time is clearly the past. At that time, we didn't have any MRIs left. This context would require a third conditional, I think.)

(2) Can the second "would have been" be replaced with "would be", as in "Then she would be the one sitting here..."? (Because clearly he is talking about the current situation, which requires a second conditional.)

(3) Can the third "would have been" be replaced with "would be", as in "...which would be a good thing"? (For the same reason as in (2))

GPY · Accepted Answer

1) "If we had any of those left" is talking about the present MRI situation, but the "present" situation is understood to have remained unchanged since at least the time when his wife died.

2/3) Yes.

Listenever · Answer

GPY1) "If we had any of those left" is talking about the present MRI situation, but the "present" situation is understood to have remained unchanged since at least the time when his wife died.

I really appreciate your quick answer.

But you can't really say "If we had any of those left now, the doctors would have been able to find the cyst in my wife's brain before she died, instead of afterwards.", because having any of those left "now" wouldn't be able to affect what already happened in the past. If "now" cannot be inserted there, how can you say that it "is talking about the present MRI situation"?

GPY2/3) Yes.

If the second conditional form ("would be") is possible, why did he choose the third conditional form ("would have been") to talk about the present situation?

GPY · Answer

listeneverBut you can't really say "If we had any of those left now, the doctors would have been able to find the cyst in my wife's brain before she died, instead of afterwards.", because having any of those left "now" wouldn't be able to affect what already happened in the past. If "now" cannot be inserted there, how can you say that it "is talking about the present MRI situation"?

The insertion of "now" may narrow the scope; however, depending on context, the scope of "now" can also extend greatly beyond the present instant.

listeneverIf the second conditional form ("would be") is possible, why did he say the third conditional form ("would have been") to talk about the present situation?

Both forms work here, and they are understood to mean more or less the same (perhaps the version with "have been" feels slightly more hypothetical). Quite probably there was no considered decision to use one form rather than the other. It was just the wording that came into the writer's head.

Listenever · Answer

GPYThe insertion of "now" may narrow the scope; however, depending on context, the scope of "now" can also extend greatly beyond the present instant.

Well, even if the scope of "now" is extended beyond the present instant, it cannot be extended to the point in time when his wife was still alive, can it?

Perhaps more important is not the word "now" itself or the scope thereof, but whether the meaning of the if-clause can encompass the time before his wife died. If it can, then how do you distinguish the respective forms of if-clause used in the second and third conditionals?

GPYBoth forms work here, and they are understood to mean more or less the same (perhaps the version with "have been" feels slightly more hypothetical). Quite probably there was no considered decision to use one form rather than the other. It was just the wording that came into the writer's head.

Is there something peculiar about the context that makes it possible to use both forms here?
Perhaps more correct way of asking is this: Is there something peculiar about the context that makes it possible to use the "would have been" form to describe a present situation, instead of the "would be" form?

There must be something about this, because otherwise you'd always be able to use "would have been" instead of "would be" when you talk about a present situation. I'd like to know what that "something" is.

GPY · Answer

listeneverWell, even if the scope of "now" is extended beyond the present instant, it cannot be extended to the point in time when his wife was still alive, can it?

Potentially yes. "now" can refer to large swathes of time when a present era is contrasted with a past era. However, whether it works or not in this particular context makes no difference to the original question since the word "now" was not included anyway.

listeneverPerhaps more important is not the word "now" itself or the scope thereof, but whether the meaning of the if-clause can encompass the time before his wife died. If it can, then how do you distinguish the respective forms of if-clause used in the second and third conditionals?

If things have changed in some relevant respect between "now" and "then", then you cannot say "if we had" when you mean "if we had had". If nothing relevant has changed, and the context is otherwise suitable, then the "present" of "if we had" can be extended as appropriate.

listeneverIs there something peculiar about the context that makes it possible to use both forms here?

Not really "peculiar", but I think at least the determining event (in this case the wife's survival) must have happened in the past. You can't say "I would have been thrilled if you invited me to your party" meaning "I would be thrilled if you invited me to your party", for example.

Listenever · Answer

GPYIf things have changed in some relevant respect between "now" and "then", then you cannot say "if we had" when you mean "if we had had". If nothing relevant has changed, and the context is otherwise suitable, then the "present" of "if we had" can be extended as appropriate.

I think I get it.

GPYI think at least the determining event (in this case the wife's survival) must have happened in the past.

By which, do you mean that the wife's hypothetical survival must have happened in the past? And that the hypothetical survival happening in the past somehow enables the use of "would have been" in "would have been the one sitting" and "would have been a good thing"?

GPY · Answer

listeneverBy which, do you mean that the wife's hypothetical survival must have happened in the past? And that the hypothetical survival happening in the past somehow enables the use of "would have been" in "would have been the one sitting" and "would have been a good thing"?

It seems so. The time of "would have been the one sitting" and "would have been a good thing" is a hypothetical time that would have arisen if the past event had happened differently. Although "would have been the one sitting" and "would have been a good thing" are presented an alternative to what is happening now, they would not happen in the "real now", if you see what I mean.

Have you seen "Interstellar"?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions