0
Anupam77 Posted 13 years ago
Grammar

Were to/had

I got struck in the meaning of these two sentences,I want to know the difference between the meaning of these two if there is.
1.If the wire were to have destroyed the building,it would have been a tragic culture loss.
2.If the fire had destroyed the building,t would have been a tragic culture loss
  

Top answer

If the fire had destroyed the building, i t would have been a tragic culture loss There is no difference in meaning.

— Fivejedjon

  • If the fire had destroyed the building, i t would have been a tragic culture loss There is no difference in meaning.
Free · every Monday

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
anupam771.If the wire were to have destroyed the building,it would have been a tragic culture loss.2.If the fire had destroyed the building,it would have been a tragic culture loss
There is no difference in meaning.
0
0
The meaning is the same. The second phrasing is the better one. It's simpler. It has fewer words.

CJ
0
0
Hi Teachers,

Both sentences are in past perfect, Am I right?

Thanks,
Subash.S
0
0
subash2008Both sentences are in past perfect, Am I right?
No. Only the clause If the fire had destroyed the building contains a past perfect tense.

There is no occurrence at all of 'had' in the first sentence. Without 'had', you can't have a past perfect.

CJ
0

Related Questions