I find nothing wrong with #1. Others might find #2 okay, but I would say: If only I hadn't had so much homework, I could have read this book.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
XerxesIf she were more beautiful now, she could have married some millionaire in the past.I should have elaborated. By "now" I mean that "she" is still around and is still not beautiful enough to marry a millionaire.
XerxesXerxesIf she were more beautiful now, she could have married some millionaire in the past.I should have elaborated. By "now" I mean that "she" is still around and is still not beautiful enough to marry a millionaire.I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm a little dubious. It seems as if the millionaire was basing his (hypothetical) decision on how she wo
CalifJimI'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm a little dubious. It seems as if the millionaire was basing his (hypothetical) decision on how she would look in the future. In short, I find this type of mixed conditional confusing. It makes a situation in the past dependent on a situation in the present, doesn't it? That seems backwards to me.Perhaps the example
XerxesHere is another, better example:If you hadn't slept with that ex-boyfriend of yours, you wouldn't be pregnant now.The sleeping part took place in the past; the pregnancy is now.The reason that it's better is that it's a mixed conditional of a different type. Here what happened in the past influenced the present state of affairs. So this isn't the pres
CalifJimHere, as you know from previous discussions, I'd be inclined to think of "If she were" as a substitute for "If she had been there".I remember our previous discussions, CJ. I struggle to think of "If she were" as a substitute for "if she had been there".
fivejedjonIf he were alive now, then he would clearly have been alive at the time the things happened.Right, and you have just provided a good example of the mixed conditional!