Mixed conditional

Question

The following examples are taken from a novel and a screenplay:

(1) You know, if you were paying attention to your assignment, it wouldn't have happened.
(2) If she were working for Moretti, he would have protected her with a reasonably plausible story.

Can we say "if you paid" or "if she worked" in (1) and (2)?
I wonder why the past progressives are used in (1) and (2).

Ruslana · Accepted Answer

Probably the author used the Past Progressive for he wanted to emphasize the continuity of the actions. If I were the author, I'd have used the Past Simple.

Kooyeen · Answer

Hi,
I don't think those are really mixed conditionals, but you know, it depends what you mean by "mixed".

If you were paying attention to your assignment, it wouldn't have happened. <--- You are not paying attention, that's why it happened (just now, probably).
If she were working for Moretti, he would have protected her with a reasonably plausible story. <--- She's not working for Moretti at the moment. Moretti would have protected her.

Yeah, maybe the simple past would have been better, but it depends on the context and what you want to stress, I think.

CalifJim · Answer

I would say that these became mixed conditionals through the substitution of were for had been, which is a common substitution, especially in everyday conversation. I would say that the 'original' thoughts and meanings were:

If you had been paying attention, it wouldn't have happened.
If she had been working for him, he would have protected her.

(The versions with were-substitutions have the same meanings as the 'originals'.)
________

As for the substitution of the simple past:

If you paid attention, it wouldn't have happened.

My personal feeling here is that to get the same meaning as the original, it should be If you had paid attention, it wouldn't have happened. This one usually refers to an individual act of paying attention, whereas the one with the progressive usually refers to a period of time filled by the activity of continuous attention-paying.

Compare:
The fire alarm went off, and believe me, when an excited voice came over the speaker system, everyone paid attention. (Everyone immediately became alert to the situation.)
There was a ladder against the wall, but I wasn't paying attention, so I ran right into it and banged my head. (I was not continuously alert to such dangers as I was walking.)
________

If she worked for him, he would have protected her.

Again, my feeling is that this should be If she had worked for him, he would have protected her. This example is a little different from the 'pay attention' example. I hear the difference like this:

Progressive: If she had been working for him (at that time), he would have protected her (then) (at the same time).
Simple: If she had (ever) worked for him (at any time before that), he would have protected her (either while she had been working for him or after she had finished working for him).

CJ

Teleostomi · Answer

Wow CalifJim, thanks to you I now completely understand the usage! I owe you a lot!

I would say that these became mixed conditionals through the substitution of were for had been, which is a common substitution, especially in everyday conversation. I would say that the 'original' thoughts and meanings were:

If you had been paying attention, it wouldn't have happened.
If she had been working for him, he would have protected her.

(The versions with were-substitutions have the same meanings as the 'originals'.)

Oh, both versions are virtually the same in meaning! Is it also common in BrEn?

CalifJim · Answer

I do not think this differs between AmE and BrE, but maybe someone who speaks BrE will add more information about this.

CJ

Mixed conditional

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions