Indirect inferential?
2. If your late father was as clever as you always claim, he wouldn't have gone bankrupt.
3. If he jumped out of the window, he would have left footprints in the flowerbeds.
Hi, could you please have a look at the three examples and check my interpretations of them in brackets? Are my interpretations correct? Are the three examples of the same usage?
(1. The speaker knows he didn’t know a lot about warfare, and uses this knowledge to argue that he didn’t really fight in Vietnam for three years)
(2. The speaker knows the father did go bankrupt, and uses this knowledge to argue that the father wasn’t that clever.)
(3. The speaker knows there were no footprints in the flowerbeds, and use this knowledge to argue that he didn't jump out of the window.)
Thank you.
Top answer
To make (1) and (3) proper counterfactuals, you need to say "if he had really fought" and "if he had jumped". Without "had", (1) and (3) allow the possibility that the things described did actually happen, or they may be understood as loosely written (some may say incorrectly written) counterfactuals, depending on context. (2) can realistically only be interpreted to mean that he wasn't clever (according to the speaker) and did go bankrupt.
- To make (1) and (3) proper counterfactuals, you need to say "if he had really fought" and "if he had jumped".
- Without "had", (1) and (3) allow the possibility that the things described did actually happen, or they may be understood as loosely written (some may say incorrectly written) counterfactuals, depending on context.
- (2) can realistically only be interpreted to mean that he wasn't clever (according to the speaker) and did go bankrupt.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
To make (1) and (3) proper counterfactuals, you need to say "if he had really fought" and "if he had jumped". Without "had", (1) and (3) allow the possibility that the things described did actually happen, or they may be understood as loosely written (some may say incorrectly written) counterfactuals, depending on context.
(2) can realistically only be interpreted to mean that he wasn't
0
Related Questions