0
Anonymous Posted 18 years ago
Grammar
Is this really right? <grammar question>
‘If you looked in the past, you would have noticed amazing things.’
My text says this is correct. But should it not be "If you HAD looked in the past, you would have noticed amazing things."
Why or why not?
Thanks for your time.
My text says this is correct. But should it not be "If you HAD looked in the past, you would have noticed amazing things."
Why or why not?
Thanks for your time.
Top answer
I agree with you; it should be 'had looked'.
- I agree with you; it should be 'had looked'.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
5 Answers
0
0
Anonymous‘If you looked in the past, you would have noticed amazing things.’Your question indicates that you found the invalidity of the use of the simple past tense for a reason.
My text says this is correct. But should it not be "If you HAD looked in the past, you would have noticed amazing things."
Why or why not?
00
0
AnonymousI'm sorry. Was that supposed to help?Hi Anon,
should give you a quick summary for conditional usages. It does address the paring of four conditional constructions. If you still have a problem, please let us know.
00
Hi Anon
I agree that 'had looked' would be the standard format. The broader context will sometimes justify a mixed conditional, but it's hard to imagine what justification there might be. Perhaps they had something like this in mind:
A: Why don't you look?
B: I did look! I always look.
A: If (it were true that) you looked in the past, you would have noticed amaz
I agree that 'had looked' would be the standard format. The broader context will sometimes justify a mixed conditional, but it's hard to imagine what justification there might be. Perhaps they had something like this in mind:
A: Why don't you look?
B: I did look! I always look.
A: If (it were true that) you looked in the past, you would have noticed amaz
0
Related Questions