Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
Use of conditionals
English answer:
See comments below...
Added to glossary by
Wilsonn Perez Reyes
Mar 21, 2007 20:29
17 yrs ago
English term
El Salvador
BA in Translation & BA in Law
Native in: Spanish 
Works in: English to Spanish, Spanish to English, French to Spanish, and 2 more.
Use of conditionals
Non-PRO
English
Art/Literary
Linguistics
Conditionals
I would like to know the differences of the use of "were to have/had" in the following cases as well as the way such differences should be reflected in translation.
If you ***were to have*** a legal dispute, what would happen?
If you ***were to have*** walked into a health food store twenty years ago, about the only thing you would have probably found were protein powders, a few herbs, and some vitamins.
In contrast with:
If you ***had*** a legal dispute, what would happen?
If you ***had*** walked into a health food store twenty years ago, about the only thing you would have probably found were protein powders, a few herbs, and some vitamins.
Thanks.
If you ***were to have*** a legal dispute, what would happen?
If you ***were to have*** walked into a health food store twenty years ago, about the only thing you would have probably found were protein powders, a few herbs, and some vitamins.
In contrast with:
If you ***had*** a legal dispute, what would happen?
If you ***had*** walked into a health food store twenty years ago, about the only thing you would have probably found were protein powders, a few herbs, and some vitamins.
Thanks.
Responses
| 4 +7 | See comments below... |
Tony M
|
Change log
Mar 21, 2007 21:16: Tony M changed "Level" from "PRO" to "Non-PRO"
Responses
+7
7 mins
Selected
See comments below...
Your first two examples are rather formal in style, and have rather dropped out of use in current, everyday usage.
Your second alternatives would be more usual nowadays.
To my ears, the use of your first two versions implies an even more hypothetical nature to the supposition, but it would be a very slight nuance, and quite debatable. "were you to have..." kind of implies "but of course you didn't"
Do note the differnces between the use of have, as a verb in its own right in your first example, and as an auxiliary in the second.
In fact, I'm not so sure these are conditionals at all; aren't they in fact the subjunctive?
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2007-03-21 22:03:41 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I think the first use of 'have' is misleading [#1 and #3) — it sounds a little odd to say 'have a legal dispute'.
"If you were to be involved in a legal dispute" resolves the question, since the other version (i.e. #3) wouldn't exist at all.
Your second alternatives would be more usual nowadays.
To my ears, the use of your first two versions implies an even more hypothetical nature to the supposition, but it would be a very slight nuance, and quite debatable. "were you to have..." kind of implies "but of course you didn't"
Do note the differnces between the use of have, as a verb in its own right in your first example, and as an auxiliary in the second.
In fact, I'm not so sure these are conditionals at all; aren't they in fact the subjunctive?
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2007-03-21 22:03:41 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I think the first use of 'have' is misleading [#1 and #3) — it sounds a little odd to say 'have a legal dispute'.
"If you were to be involved in a legal dispute" resolves the question, since the other version (i.e. #3) wouldn't exist at all.
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Many thanks."
Something went wrong...