0
Taka Posted 19 years ago
Grammar
significant difference?
(1) If I were going to commit a crime, I would look for a dark spot.
(2) If I were to commit a crime, I would look for a dark spot.
Semantically, do you native speakers see any significant difference between (1) and (2)? Or do you think it's safe to say that they are roughly the same?
(2) If I were to commit a crime, I would look for a dark spot.
Semantically, do you native speakers see any significant difference between (1) and (2)? Or do you think it's safe to say that they are roughly the same?
Top answer
Hi Taka I see them as different. (1) refers to a counterfactual intent and what that counterfactual intent would result in my doing (looking for a dark spot) before the crime took place. (2) seems to mean that I would look for a dark spot after committing a crime.
- Hi Taka I see them as different.
- (1) refers to a counterfactual intent and what that counterfactual intent would result in my doing (looking for a dark spot) before the crime took place.
- (2) seems to mean that I would look for a dark spot after committing a crime.
- That's my take.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
4 Answers
0
Hi Taka
I see them as different.
(1) refers to a counterfactual intent and what that counterfactual intent would result in my doing (looking for a dark spot) before the crime took place.
(2) seems to mean that I would look for a dark spot after committing a crime.
That's my take.
I see them as different.
(1) refers to a counterfactual intent and what that counterfactual intent would result in my doing (looking for a dark spot) before the crime took place.
(2) seems to mean that I would look for a dark spot after committing a crime.
That's my take.
00
Yankee,
Your 'before/after' theory is interesting, but what about this?
·We should reduce labor cost if we were to make a profit.
It doesn't seem that the sentence means 'We must reduce labor cost after making a profit', or does it?
Your 'before/after' theory is interesting, but what about this?
·We should reduce labor cost if we were to make a profit.
It doesn't seem that the sentence means 'We must reduce labor cost after making a profit', or does it?
00
Hi Taka
Your sentence with 'must reduce' and 'are to make a profit' would refer what we have do now (and in the future) and then to the future result.
To me, saying "If I were to do something" is basically the same as saying "If I did something" and what typically follows that type of if-clause is the result of the theoretical action (i.e. what would happen afterwards).
So
Your sentence with 'must reduce' and 'are to make a profit' would refer what we have do now (and in the future) and then to the future result.
To me, saying "If I were to do something" is basically the same as saying "If I did something" and what typically follows that type of if-clause is the result of the theoretical action (i.e. what would happen afterwards).
So
00
Hmm...but if the sentence were:
We should have reduced labor cost if we were to make a profit.
then it should be equal to:
If we intended to/were going to make a profit(=before making a profit), we should have reduced labor cost.
,so it might not be the 'if S were to do' itself that makes it mean 'after something/before something', don't you think
We should have reduced labor cost if we were to make a profit.
then it should be equal to:
If we intended to/were going to make a profit(=before making a profit), we should have reduced labor cost.
,so it might not be the 'if S were to do' itself that makes it mean 'after something/before something', don't you think
0
Related Questions