if it had/were/was not been for
Tacia
I wonder if there are distinctions among /if it had not been for
something/, /if it wasn't been for something/ and /if it weren't for
something/.
Most of my dictionaries mark them as interchangeable, but a usage book
states that /it had not been for/ is used for the past.
Some online dictionaries:
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/for_1
(#23)
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=if*1+3&dict=A
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=30315&dict=CALD
------------
1. If it weren't for your help, we would never have finished in time.
2. If it wasn't for your help, we would never have finished in time.
3. If it had not been for your help, we would never have finished in
time.
(Do they mean the same thing?)
4. If it weren't for your help, we _would never finish_ in time.
(Does it mean the same thing as the first three sentences?)
Sincerely
Tacia
Tacia
> I wonder if there are distinctions among /if it had not been for
> something/, /if it wasn't been for something/ ...
OOPS!
I made serious mistakes in the title and here!
I just copied and pasted...I was intended to type "if it were not for
something"
Stuckey
The first two have the same meaning. The third differs from the first
two in that the first part, "If it had not been for your help" is, I
believe, in the past perfect tense, whereas the first two sentences
begin in the presence. In this way the third sentence references help
that has already been given and that is no longer being given.
The fourth sentence is entirely in the present tense.
Hope that helps,
jhs
Marius Hancu
http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/presentconditional.html#presentunreal
http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/presentconditional.html#presentunreal
or here:
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-conditional_3.htm
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-conditional_4.htm
Marius Hancu
Marius Hancu
> 1. If it weren't for your help, we would never have finished in time.
> 2. If it wasn't for your help, we would never have finished in time.
1 and 2 mean the same thing, however 1 is formal and 2 is less so.
They are used for the past time here, which is a bit unusual. I prefer
3 in the past.
They are unusual in that the condition parts are
"contemporaneous" (i.e. at the same time) in the past with the
"finished" part (the main part) and this worries many people,
including myself. I feel that the condition (the "if" part), logically
speaking, should be fulfilled prior to the main sentence (2nd part
here), thus showing precedence.
> 3. If it had not been for your help, we would never have finished in
> time.
3 is the classical/canonical version for showing precedence between
condition and main sentence. The best version, IMO.
1, 2 and 3 mean the same here.
> 4. If it weren't for your help, we _would never finish_ in time.
> (Does it mean the same thing as the first three sentences?)
No. This is all in present time and a correct/canonical one.
I prefer to avoid using "was/were" in the past in such conditional
constructions, and prefer the past perfect, however the reality is
that they are all used.
Marius Hancu
Jim Karatassos
Tacia,
There's a lot of stuff out there on mixed conditionals. Any good
grammar book will give you good information on the subject.
Marius Hancu
Google Books show that they are all used:
78 on " If it weren't for * we would never have"
http://books.google.com/books?q=%22+If+it+weren%27t+for++*+we+would+never+have%22&btnG=Search+Books
42 on "If it wasn't for * we would never have"
http://books.google.com/books?q=%22If+it+wasn%27t+for++*+we+would+never+have%22&btnG=Search+Books
205 on "If it hadn't been for * we would never have"
http://books.google.com/books?q=%22If+it+hadn%27t+been+for++*+we+would+never+have%22&btnG=Search+Books
Glad to see the classical approach is the most used:-)
Marius Hancu