a. If I had swimming lessons before, I could have joined you now.
b. If I had swimming lessons before, I would have joined you now.
Are either sentences correct or only the second one? Can we use could instead of would in conditional sentences?
Thank you
Answers:
Both of the 2nd clauses are correct. There is
a difference in meaning.
I could have joined you now. This means that the possibility of joining exists.
I would have joined you now. This means that the possibility of joining exists and also the inclination--but that there is probably some reason why it didn't happen.
There's an error in the first clause. When you have two simultaneous actions like that, the first clause should be in the past perfect, in other words [had + past participle]. The verb here is had, so the past perfect form is actually had had. This might look a little odd because the past participle of "to have" is had, so it is correctly formed had + had.
If I had had swimming lessons before....
This might be easier to see if you used the verb to take.
I took swimming lessons. [present]
taken [past participle]
had taken [had + past participle].
If I had taken swimming lessons before, I would have joined you now.
This also works:
If I had had swimming lessons before, I could have joined you now.
If I had had swimming lessons before, I would have joined you now.
Neither is actually correct. If I had had swimming lessons before, ...+ either I could or would have joined you now. Both are conditional in this context.
In this case, 'could' means that an opportunity has not been presented. 'Would' means that an opportunity has been presented, but not necessarily taken. As far as I know, they are both correct. It just depends on the context you are trying ot use it.
This article contents is post by this website user, EduQnA.com doesn't promise its accuracy.
More Questions & Answers...
word haligh. any help?