"if you wouldn't have"
Andrew B.
seems "better" to me, as in (say) "If you wouldn't have lied about it,
you'd have been forgiven". Is this
(a) perfectly normal, and I'm hopelessly out of touch?
(b) normal in America English, not in British English?
(c) non-standard everywhere?
(Of course "If you wouldn't have lied about it, that shows how honest
you are" is perfectly OK, if a bit contrived).
Dave Baker
It all seems ignorant to my British ears, especially your last
sentence.
Andrew B.
You don't think it's OK? "Would you have lied about it? If you
wouldn't have lied about it..." As I said, in this context it's
contrived.
Dave Baker
I think "if" on top of a negated "would" make this an unilkely thing
to say. I suppose in your contrived situation you can just about get
away with it.
semir...@my-deja.com
Marius Hancu
---
Conditional "would" is sometimes used in both sentences of an "if"-
sentence. This is very informal, and not usually written.
It is common in spoken American English.
It would be good if we'd get some rain.
How would we feel if this would happen ...
If you wouldn't have phoned her we'd never have found out what was
happening
Practical English usage
Michael Swan - 2005
http://tinyurl.com/6fs4za9
---
Marius Hancu
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
In my experience it is creeping into BrE.
That means that it is normal for some people.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Stephen
> I keep seeing people use "if you wouldn't have" where "if you hadn't"
> seems "better" to me, as in (say) "If you wouldn't have lied about it,
> you'd have been forgiven". Is this
>
> (a) perfectly normal, and I'm hopelessly out of touch?
> (b) normal in America English, not in British English?
> (c) non-standard everywhere?
Marked as non-standard to me.
We seem to be saying this sort of thing in more complicated ways.
"Had you not lied..." still sounds okay to me, but I don't hear the
younger ones saying it.
> (Of course "If you wouldn't have lied about it, that shows how honest
> you are" is perfectly OK, if a bit contrived).
Yes, that's OK.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Mike Lyle
That, however, doesn't mean they shouldn't be strung up.
--
Mike.
Robert Bannister
I agree with Andrew that this use of the "would have", "wouldn't have"
construction where I expect "had/hadn't" is on the increase.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
And why not? A good flogging first would help too. If the "for you and
I" people had been executed properly, we wouldn't have all this nonsense
today.
Of course, when I say "Aren't I?" or "It's me", that is something
totally different.
--
Robert Bannister
Athel Cornish-Bowden
I think "if you wouldn't have" is unusual, to the point of being
non-standard, in native speakers, but it is common in people who have
learned English as a foreign language.
--
athel
Andrew B.
wrote:
FWIW:
"if you wouldn't have said": 62,200,000 Google hits
"if you hadn't said": 3,220,000 Google hits
Checking the first 3 pages of "if you wouldn't have said", 28 of the
30 are of the type that seem wrong to me.
Jerry Friedman
wrote:
I imagine "If you wouldn't have" is more common than "if you had" in
America. Where I live, I hear the form with "had" maybe once or twice
a year.
--
Jerry Friedman
Robert Bannister
I would expect it from Germans who use a similar construction in the own
language. I could only wish that you were correct, however, in implying
that it is mainly a feature found in the mouths of foreigners, whereas,
my own sad observation is that more and more of our own are using it.
--
Robert Bannister
Bertel Lund Hansen
>> I think "if you wouldn't have" is unusual, to the point of being
>> non-standard, in native speakers, but it is common in people who have
>> learned English as a foreign language.
> I would expect it from Germans who use a similar construction in the own
> language.
I don't think they use such constructions with "wollen". I will
not try to translate the original sentence since I am not sure I
can do it idiomatically correct, but I have not met a
construction in German along the lines of the original.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Athel Cornish-Bowden
I mainly associate this construction with an Israeli that I knew many
years ago (around 1970). That was in the US, and it was sufficiently
unusual in the mouths of US speakers for me to notice when he said it.
Things have doubtless changed, and as I'm the only native speaker I
hear every day my notions of what is usual are probably fossils from
about 1987.
--
athel
Robert Bannister
würde + infinitive, except with modals and a few other verbs like 'to
be' and 'to have'.
--
Robert Bannister
Bertel Lund Hansen
>> I don't think they use such constructions with "wollen". I will
>> not try to translate the original sentence since I am not sure I
>> can do it idiomatically correct, but I have not met a
>> construction in German along the lines of the original.
> würde + infinitive, except with modals and a few other verbs like 'to
> be' and 'to have'.
Sure, those are perfectky normal, but "wollen" (corresponding to
"would") has nothing to do with it.
Hättest du nicht darum gelogen, würdest du ...
I am not sure that "darum" is correct.
--
Bertel, Denmark
John Holmes
It couldn't happen. The "for you and I" have a guardian angel.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Robin Bignall
wrote:
>Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 11/05/11 5:15 AM, Mike Lyle wrote:
>>>
>>> That, however, doesn't mean they shouldn't be strung up.
>>
>> And why not? A good flogging first would help too. If the "for you and
>> I" people had been executed properly, we wouldn't have all this
>> nonsense today.
>
>It couldn't happen. The "for you and I" have a guardian angel.
<nice one>
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England
Mike Lyle
wrote:
>Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 11/05/11 5:15 AM, Mike Lyle wrote:
>>>
>>> That, however, doesn't mean they shouldn't be strung up.
>>
>> And why not? A good flogging first would help too. If the "for you and
>> I" people had been executed properly, we wouldn't have all this
>> nonsense today.
>
>It couldn't happen. The "for you and I" have a guardian angel.
What a swell party a.u.e. is!
--
Mike.