# I would have married her when I would have been a grown-up?



## alex_terieur

Hello,

Which is the correct sentence (if any)?

- I would have married her when I would have been a grown-up.
- I would have married her when I would have grown up.
- I would have married her when I grew up.
- I would have married her when I grow up.

Context: the girl that the narrator would have married died some time earlier and he imagines what he would have done with her in the future if she hadn't.

Thanks!


----------



## owlman5

"I would have married her when I grew up" is the only sentence you've suggested that expresses your idea naturally, alex.  The other versions are strange.


----------



## alex_terieur

Thank you for answering so quickly! Just to be sure: does "I would have married her when I grew up" also express the idea that the narrator is still young? I mean, too young to marry because he's not a grown-up yet?


----------



## owlman5

You're welcome.  The narrator could already be ninety years old at the time he utters this sentence.  He is talking, however, about intentions or plans he had in some stage of life before he grew up.  

The narrator could also still be a kid when he makes that remark.  You would really need to add other language if you want readers to have some understanding of how old he is at the time of the remark.


----------



## DonnyB

Should this not actually be: "- I would have married her when I *had grown *up."?
If the girl of his dreams died some earlier while he was too young for her, according to the scenario, then he would have had to have completed the process of growing up, before he would have been eligible to marry her?


----------



## Parla

> Should this not actually be: "- I would have married her when I *had grown *up."?


No—not in AE, at least. I agree with Owlman.


----------



## velisarius

I agree with Owlman too.


----------



## bearded

And what about 'I would have married her when I'd grow up'?  Thanks in advance.


----------



## velisarius

bearded man said:


> And what about 'I would have married her when I'd grow up'?  Thanks in advance.


No, sorry, not possible. I take it you mean: "I would have married her when I would grow up". It isn't idiomatic. It also doesn't seem logical, since there is no doubt that he has in fact grown up.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

DonnyB said:


> Should this not actually be: "- I would have married her when I *had grown *up."?
> If the girl of his dreams died some earlier while he was too young for her, according to the scenario, then he would have had to have completed the process of growing up, before he would have been eligible to marry her?


We were recently asked a question with a bearing on this issue.

I'm interested to see that some people answer in the one direction in the other thread and in the other direction in this one.

I certainly wouldn't prefer Donny's suggestion but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.


----------



## london calling

There are already many threads which discuss the so-called _future in the past_, of which this is an example. I agree that the only possible sentence is _I would have married her when I grew up._

future in the past
future in the past
Future in the past
Future in the past
future in the past
future in the past or conditional
Future in the past: would and would have
Future in the past:rules

I would take this sentence to be an example of indirect speech, i.e. _I said I would have married her when I grew up_ (direct speech: "I will marry her when I grow up").


----------



## Thomas Tompion

london calling said:


> There are already many threads which discuss the so-called _future in the past_, of which this is an example. I agree that the only possible sentence is _I would have married her when I grew up._
> 
> [...]
> 
> I would take this sentence to be an example of indirect speech, i.e. _I said I would have married her when I grew up_ (direct speech: "I will marry her when I grow up").


I often wonder why members use these dangerous absolutes (eg. 'only possible'), to present their points of view.  Learners could easily glean the false impression here that the conditional cannot be used as a main verb after _when + past perfect_, yet that is an entirely normal and idiomatic construction.  Here's an example from Cardinal Newman:

_when He had ascended out of sight, then         again they would have persecuted His followers. _

Absolutely impossible?  Certainly not.  Entirely idiomatic and correct.

Also, why must we be talking about indirect speech?  I can see no indication to this effect in the OP.  Please explain.  Obviously if you are going to wish into the sentence an opening 'he said that' you alter all the rules of tense sequencing.  Gratuitously, in my view.


----------



## velisarius

So Thomas Tompion you are agreeing with DonnyB in post #5. "I would have married her when I had grown up", or "When I had grown up I would have married her", in line with the Cardinal Newman quote. But there it really means "if he had ascended out of sight again they would have persecuted ..." Both parts of the sentence are hypothetical, whereas in the sentence in question the only hypothetical part is that he "would have married her". 

I'll stop now before I get totally confused, but it still seems to me that the only really natural version would be that suggested by owlman, even if Donny's sentence is possible.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

velisarius said:


> So Thomas Tompion you are agreeing with DonnyB in post #5. "I would have married her when I had grown up", or "When I had grown up I would have married her", in line with the Cardinal Newman quote. But there it really means "if he had ascended out of sight again they would have persecuted ..." Both parts of the sentence are hypothetical, whereas in the sentence in question the only hypothetical part is that he "would have married her".
> 
> I'll stop now before I get totally confused, but it still seems to me that the only really natural version would be that suggested by owlman, even if Donny's sentence is possible.


Hi Velisarius,

It's not like you to attribute views to people without their authority.

I've already said explicitly and simply that I wouldn't dismiss Donny's suggestion out of hand.  It's not unidiomatic, in my view; it simply lays the stress somewhere else.

Like most of the other posters here I would prefer, in most situations,_ I would have married her when I grew up_.

I was objecting to the idea that the version I prefer is the _only possible_ version.

We must be careful with absolutes when teaching people, ie. trying to communicate what is true.  An absolute is like a glowing light to a learner; he fixes on the point as something to learn, with obvious consequences.


----------



## kool-wind

I think I would probably say "…when I grew up" like Owlman,

but why isn't 'I would have married her when I grow up' also acceptable?

We are told that the narrator hasn't yet grown up.
Let's suppose he had intended to marry her at the age of say 20, but he's still only 16.

If we put this supposition into the sentence we get,
'I would have married her when I reach 20'. 'Reached' would sound decidedly odd when it's still 4 years in the future.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

kool-wind said:


> [...]
> but why isn't 'I would have married her when I grow up' also acceptable?
> 
> We are told that the narrator hasn't yet grown up.


I don't think we are told this.  We are given this context:





alex_terieur said:


> Context: the girl that the narrator would have married died some time  earlier and he imagines what he would have done with her in the future  if she hadn't.


Granted that the narrator is talking about the girl he would have married, I think we can assume he has grown up.

This is why 'I would have married her when I grow up' is not acceptable.


----------



## Myridon

kool-wind said:


> I think I would probably say "…when I grew up" like Owlman,
> 
> but why isn't 'I would have married her when I grow up' also acceptable?
> 
> We are told that the narrator hasn't yet grown up.
> Let's suppose he had intended to marry her at the age of say 20, but he's still only 16.
> 
> If we put this supposition into the sentence we get,
> 'I would have married her when I reach 20'. 'Reached' would sound decidedly odd when it's still 4 years in the future.


No, "reached" is correct, not "decidedly odd" at all.  What was once a future plan is no longer a plan at all.  It only exists in the past.  Now, it is like reported speech and everything about the plan is shifted into the past.


----------



## london calling

Thomas, _When He had ascended out of sight, then again they would have persecuted His followers _was written in the 19th century (Newman died at the end of the 19th century). Doubtless it was 'entirely idiomatic and correct' at the time.  I believe however that the question here relates to present-day speech: if I were to write this sentence today I would not use the past perfect.

Regards _I would have married her when I grew up_ being reported speech, I said I would take it to be indirect speech, I did not say that the OP had stated it was and I certainly did not say that we 'must be talking about' indirect speech.  

In any case, having re-read the OP I must say I agree with Donny: _had grown up_ is entirely possible, given the young lady's untimely demise, so I therefore take back what I said about the only possible sentence being _I would have married her when I grew up_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

london calling said:


> Thomas, _When He had ascended out of sight, then again they would have persecuted His followers _was written in the 19th century (Newman died at the end of the 19th century). Doubtless it was 'entirely idiomatic and correct' at the time.  I believe however that the question here relates to present-day speech: if I were to write this sentence today I would not use the past perfect.
> 
> Regards _I would have married her when I grew up_ being reported speech, I said I would take it to be indirect speech, I did not say that the OP had stated it was and I certainly did not say that we 'must be talking about' indirect speech.
> 
> In any case, having re-read the OP I must say I agree with Donny: _had grown up_ is entirely possible, given the young lady's untimely demise, so I therefore take back what I said about the only possible sentence being _I would have married her when I grew up_


Hi London Calling,

I won't say what I think of your suggestion that Newman's English is no longer idiomatic.

Thank you for taking back your earlier absolute statement.


----------



## dn88

kool-wind said:


> I think I would probably say "…when I grew up" like Owlman,
> 
> but why isn't 'I would have married her when I grow up' also acceptable?
> 
> We are told that the narrator hasn't yet grown up.
> Let's suppose he had intended to marry her at the age of say 20, but he's still only 16.
> 
> If we put this supposition into the sentence we get,
> 'I would have married her when I reach 20'. 'Reached' would sound decidedly odd when it's still 4 years in the future.



If he's still 16, then isn't the 'hypothetical marriage' in the future? Doesn't "would have + past participle" normally indicate something that could have happened in the past?
_
If she *were alive*, I *would have married* her_...


----------



## PaulQ

It all becomes clearer when the clauses are reversed:

when I would have been a grown-up, I would have married her.
when I would have grown up, I would have married her.
when I grew up, I would have married her.
when I grow up, I would have married her.

Only the third is correct as it stands, although the fourth is possible with additional context: "The years pass and when I grow up, I would have married her were it not for the fact she was left-handed."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

dn88 said:


> If he's still 16, then isn't the 'hypothetical marriage' in the future? Doesn't "would have + past participle" normally indicate something that could have happened in the past?
> _
> If she *were alive*, I *would have married* her_...


This is an interesting point, Dn88, and I'm not sure you are right.

I think that when someone died, one could say_ I would have married her in five years' time._


----------



## london calling

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi London Calling,
> 
> I won't say what I think of your suggestion that Newman's English is no longer idiomatic.
> 
> Thank you for taking back your earlier absolute statement.


You're welcome Thomas.

And I won't say what I think of your considering 19th century English to be idiomatic by todays standards, so I think we're quits.


----------



## wandle

Is this not virtual indirect statement? The speaker is thinking of his unrealised childhood plan.
If the speaker mentions the plan as such, he can say:
_'My plan was that I would marry her when I grew up'._
Converting this to direct speech:
_' My plan was: "I will marry her when I grow up" '._
This corresponds to the retrospective statement:
_'I would have married her when I grew up'._

In this situation, we would not naturally say _'I will marry her when I have grown up'_, but this statement is nevertheless a logical and possible one. 
The resulting indirect statement is:
_[My plan was that] I would marry her when I had grown up'_.
Converting this to retrospective statement:
_'I would have married her when I had grown up'._

Following the logic to the end, it is also possible to say: _'I will marry her when I shall have grown up'_.
However, not even the child prodigy son of a lawyer would talk like this.
The resulting indirect statement now is:
_[My plan was that] I would marry her when I should have grown up'_.
Converting this to retrospective statement:
_'I would have married her when I should have grown up'._

These are logical and possible statements, though the latter examples are unlikely to be met in real life.


----------



## dn88

Thomas Tompion said:


> This is an interesting point, Dn88, and I'm not sure you are right.
> 
> I think that when someone died, one could say_ I would have married her in five years' time._


You're most likely right, Thomas, and I'm probably just reading too much into this.

So if he is 16 now, is the sentence _"If she were alive, I would marry her when I reached 20"_ not grammatically possible?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

dn88 said:


> You're most likely right, Thomas, and I'm probably just reading too much into this.
> 
> So if he is 16 now, is the sentence _"If she were alive, I would marry her when I reached 20"_ not grammatically possible?


I'm having trouble imagining circumstances appropriate to this statement, quite apart from its apparent indelicacy.

Clearly if she is dead, you are not going to have a conventional marriage with her either now or when you reach twenty.

For me it helps to consider uncertainty about her death: has she escaped a dreadful traffic accident, for instance?

As one considers this, I think the obvious choice is:

_If she is alive, I will marry her when I reach twenty._

Thinking about this years later, one gets closer to your sentence:

_If she were alive, I would have married her when I reached twenty._


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> _If she were alive, I would have married her when I reached twenty._


It seems to me that in this case, 'If she were alive' means 'If she had not died'.
Therefore the sentence should be treated as an unreal past conditional, as *Thomas Tompion* has done.


----------



## PaulQ

Thomas Tompion said:


> For me this isn't a competition.
> 
> As you wish to insist on the point, please tell us what is unidiomatic about _And, had our Lord appeared to them after they had         crucified Him, of course they would have shouted Hosanna         once more; and when He had ascended out of sight, then         again they would have persecuted His followers_.


Seriously, Thomas, that is out of the 19th century.

_And, if Jesus had appeared in front of them after they crucified Him, of course they would have shouted hooray again; and when He disappeared upwards, they would simply have recommenced persecuting His followers_.


----------



## wandle

PaulQ said:


> _And, if Jesus had appeared in front of them after they crucified Him, of course they would have shouted hooray again; and when He disappeared upwards, they would simply have recommenced persecuting His followers_.


Considered as a question of style today, I have to say I prefer the original.


----------



## Myridon

dn88 said:


> If he's still 16, then isn't the 'hypothetical marriage' in the future? Doesn't "would have + past participle" normally indicate something that could have happened in the past?
> _
> If she *were alive*, I *would have married* her_...


See my #17. The plan is entirely in the past.  It is not a hypothetical plan for the future anymore.  It's something you used to plan to do, but you no longer plan to do it.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

What about

_I would have married her when I was to grow up.


_or perhaps

_I would have married her when I was to have grown up._


----------



## Myridon

Schimmelreiter said:


> What about
> 
> _I would have married her when I was to grow up.
> 
> 
> _or perhaps
> 
> _I would have married her when I was to have grown up._



"I was to grow up" and "I was to have grown up" says that there was a plan that you would grow up, but now you are not going to grow up.  I guess that you are dead.
"I was to go to the fair tomorrow, but the fair has been cancelled."  
"I was to grow up, but now I am dead." 
"I was to grow up, but, as I am now a vampire, I will stay young forever."


----------



## Spencerfan

It's a matter of tenses, of timeline.
He indicates that the growing up must have happened before the marrying. 
He writes "would have married", not "will have married", so the past perfect is appropriate, in the case of growing up and also of reaching 20 (see kool-wind).
It may help us to consider the implied conditional: [If she had survived] "I would have married her…". His original plan was "I wanted to marry her when I had grown up" (something he could say at age 16 or at 96). The problem is that she has died, so he must now express that plan accordingly, with "If she had survived" implied.
My vote is for the following:
"I would have married her when I had grown up." and "I would have married her when I had turned 20".
I think I am probably being a bit fussy; after all, we say "When I grow up, I will be a fireman." rather than "When I have grown up, I will be a fireman." The "I would have married her when I grew up" alternative is reasonable.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Interesting discussion *

If she were alive , I would have married her when I reached 20*

Supposing that now while I'm uttering this I'm 24 and the person died when I was 18, would it be something correct to say in your view?

In my humble non-native  opinion the sentence above is perfectly valid because we're dealing with an imagined *present condition/state* and a imagined *past result*, thus it's a type of "mixed conditional".
To me it's like saying : _if I were tall I would have played basketball when I was a younger (I'm not tall now and I wasn't tall in the past)
_
Is my reasoning correct?

Thanks everybody


----------



## DonnyB

No, I think you need a pluperfect: *If she had been alive , I would have married her when I reached 20

*The imperfect subjunctive *were *is valid for a hypothetical condition existing *now*, but you're talking about a condition which would or would not have been fulfilled four years ago when you reached 20, by which time she *wasn't* still alive.  So my logical reasoning is that you need to go one step further back into the past.


----------



## kalamazoo

TO my way of thinking, the narrator is saying that he had planned to marry the girl when he grew up but it says nothing about how old he is when he is saying this.  You could say "I planned to be an architect when I grew up but I ended up being an astronaut instead"  I don't see any real difference between 'had grown up' or 'grew up' in this sentence.


----------



## ALEX1981X

DonnyB said:


> No, I think you need a pluperfect: *If she had been alive , I would have married her when I reached 20
> 
> *The imperfect subjunctive *were *is valid for a hypothetical condition existing *now*, but you're talking about a condition which would or would not have been fulfilled four years ago when you reached 20, by which time she *wasn't* still alive.  So my logical reasoning is that you need to go one step further back into the past.



Thanks DonnyB

Don't you think that in my example the pluperfect is implied:  if she were alive (now) = if she hadn't died at 18.... *thus* I would have married her when I reached 20?

A bit long winded but just like the following

*If she hadn't died when she was 18* and therefore *if he were still alive*, I would have married her when I reached 20 and we would be still married


----------



## DonnyB

ALEX1981X said:


> A bit long winded but just like the following
> 
> *If she hadn't died when she was 18* and therefore *if he were still alive*, I would have married her when I reached 20 and we would be still married


That is a much more clear-cut choice in my view.  On balance, I think I'd still use a pluperfect "had been alive" if I were writing the previous version of the sentence, but I will concede that it's very open to interpretation and I'm sure a lot of people would happily use the imperfect subjunctive instead.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

DonnyB said:


> That is a much more clear-cut choice in my view.  On balance, I think I'd still use a pluperfect "had been alive" if I were writing the previous version of the sentence, but I will concede that it's very open to interpretation and I'm sure a lot of people would happily use the imperfect subjunctive instead.


I think  you may be right about that, Donny, but it would, in my view, be either out of laziness or ignorance.

_If she were still alive, I would marry her.
If she had been still alive, I would have married her._

These are the two obvious examples.

I feel to get to some of the examples we have been discussing you  may need the tense shifts of reported speech.  Suppose you are fifty and talking to someone about how a girl you had been planning to marry had disappeared when you were both sixteen, I think you might say or write: _I knew that if she was alive, I would have married her when I reached twenty_.

In ordinary circumstances, without the almost obligatory tense-shift, if one says _if she were still alive_, one is dealing with a condition which cannot be met, and that, for me, disqualifies Alex's suggestion.  The procedure he is suggesting, of grammar by logical extension, doesn't work.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Thanks Thomas, I thought you would notice some kind of "mixed conditional" in my try
This are the patterns I've been taught to be valid and correct
http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/mixedconditional.html

What's the difference with  _if I were tall I would have played basketball when I was a younger?


_Ps
Does_ If she had been still alive, I would have married her _refer to the past or the present_? _Hope I'm not wrong but I'd tend to use "would have married" for a hyphotetical past occasion not for a present one


----------



## Spencerfan

Thomas Tompion said:


> Suppose you are fifty and talking to someone about how a girl you had been planning to marry had disappeared when you were both sixteen, I think you might say or write: _I knew that if she was alive, I would have married her when I reached twenty_.



I am not so sure, Thomas. I think that at age 50, talking to someone in such a situation, I would say or write: _I knew [then] that if she was alive, I would marry her when I reached twenty. _That is, he intended to marry her when he reached the age of twenty; he did not intend to _have married_ her by that time (grammatically correct, but different meaning).


----------



## ALEX1981X

if she were alive now, this would mean that I would have married her


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Spencerfan said:


> I am not so sure, Thomas. I think that at age 50, talking to someone in such a situation, I would say or write: _I knew [then] that if she was alive, I would marry her when I reached twenty. _That is, he intended to marry her when he reached the age of twenty; he did not intend to _have married_ her by that time (grammatically correct, but different meaning).


Yes, I can see your point.


----------

