If I had been/were (Third or mixed conditional) ?

Question

I've read many threads and viewed many sites, but, unfortunately, I can't find the answer to my question. I am confused with the use of the third and mixed conditional, especially with the phrase If I were/had been. Some claim that the combination If+had been, I would(should) have is the most appropriate and formal one while many sites have information regarding the use of the mixed conditionals .

It would be more likely to hear “If I were you, I would have bought a house in 2012.”
This is not necessarily correct, but it is more likely to be used by native speakers.
Correct way — “If I had been rich, I would have helped you.”
This means that in the past I was not rich. In the past I wanted to help you. Since I was not rich, I didn’t help you.

https://gonaturalenglish.com/second-and-third-conditional/

If I wasn't afraid of spiders, I would have picked it up.
I'd have been able to translate the letter if my Italian was better.

What about these sentences, which form I should use: were or had been:

If I were/had been her, I wouldn't have done that.
If I were/had been a bird, I would have flown there.
If I were/had been taller, I would have become a model.

What is the difference between had been and were there?

Thanks in advance!

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

olga22I've read many threads and viewed many sites, but, unfortunately, I can't find the answer to my question.

Yes, this is definitely a problematic case.

olga22
What about these sentences, which form I should use: were or had been:
If I were/had been her, I wouldn't have done that.
If I were/had been a bird, I would have flown there.
If I were/had been taller, I would have become a model.
What is the difference between had been and were there?

It's quite usual to mix conditional patterns when the verb is be in the if-clause. You might even find this kind of thing when the verb is have.

In ordinary conversation the difference is that 'had been' is more remote in time than 'were' (or 'was'). For example, your third sentence seems more clearly about a time somewhat distant in the past, so I'd probably use 'had been' in that one.

In the other two, following the same logic, I'd base it on how long ago the situation happened, but in those cases there isn't much in the sentence that tells us how remote in the past the situation might be, so either 'were' or 'had been' might be appropriate.

For example, in the first sentence, if I were talking about a situation that happened a year ago or more, I'd probably choose 'had been', but if I were talking about an event that happened yesterday, I'd probably choose 'were'. The middle sentence, following the same reasoning as for the first, might need 'had been' or 'were'.

Note also that it's common to substitute the simple past for the past perfect in other contexts, so it shouldn't be regarded as particularly unusual when the same substitution occurs in a conditional sentence.

If I were 25 and this kind of thing had happened, I might have believed the hype.
If it were a contemporary movie, I would have had a different approach.
If I were ten years younger, would I have had better reflexes?
If I had the money, I would have invested it long ago.
If I had a video camera, I would have recorded it all.
If I had a car, I probably would have gone shopping.

The first example above is interesting for having both the past 'were' and the past perfect 'had happened' in the if-clause. Here you can see how flexible English speakers are when it comes to these conditional patterns — even though it may be frustrating to learners. Sorry.

CJ

If I had been/were (Third or mixed conditional) ?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions