Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

"if you wouldn't have"

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Andrew B.

unread,
May 10, 2011, 4:59:04 AM5/10/11
to
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?

(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

unread,
May 10, 2011, 5:03:45 AM5/10/11
to

It all seems ignorant to my British ears, especially your last
sentence.

Andrew B.

unread,
May 10, 2011, 5:27:42 AM5/10/11
to

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

unread,
May 10, 2011, 5:52:12 AM5/10/11
to

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

unread,
May 10, 2011, 6:39:12 AM5/10/11
to
On May 10, 9:59 am, "Andrew B." <bull...@gmail.com> wrote:

Definitely not BrE IMHO

Marius Hancu

unread,
May 10, 2011, 6:54:49 AM5/10/11
to

---
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)

unread,
May 10, 2011, 6:57:42 AM5/10/11
to

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

unread,
May 10, 2011, 8:43:34 AM5/10/11
to
On 10/05/2011 6:59 PM, Andrew B. wrote:
> 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

Message has been deleted

Mike Lyle

unread,
May 10, 2011, 5:15:16 PM5/10/11
to

That, however, doesn't mean they shouldn't be strung up.

--
Mike.

Robert Bannister

unread,
May 10, 2011, 9:36:09 PM5/10/11
to

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

unread,
May 10, 2011, 9:38:49 PM5/10/11
to

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

unread,
May 11, 2011, 4:33:08 AM5/11/11
to

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.

unread,
May 11, 2011, 4:41:28 AM5/11/11
to
On May 11, 9:33 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr>
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

unread,
May 11, 2011, 10:42:58 AM5/11/11
to
On May 11, 2:33 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr>
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

unread,
May 11, 2011, 9:24:13 PM5/11/11
to

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

unread,
May 12, 2011, 2:41:25 AM5/12/11
to
Robert Bannister skrev:

>> 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

unread,
May 12, 2011, 3:30:00 AM5/12/11
to

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

unread,
May 12, 2011, 8:51:37 PM5/12/11
to

würde + infinitive, except with modals and a few other verbs like 'to
be' and 'to have'.

--
Robert Bannister

Bertel Lund Hansen

unread,
May 13, 2011, 5:02:53 AM5/13/11
to
Robert Bannister skrev:

>> 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

unread,
May 15, 2011, 4:01:53 AM5/15/11
to

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

unread,
May 15, 2011, 4:39:44 PM5/15/11
to
On Sun, 15 May 2011 18:01:53 +1000, "John Holmes" <see...@instead.com>
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

unread,
May 15, 2011, 5:55:00 PM5/15/11
to
On Sun, 15 May 2011 18:01:53 +1000, "John Holmes" <see...@instead.com>
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.

0 new messages