# I would have preferred to/I would have preferred it if...



## Otacon

Greetings! I'd like to know the diference between these sentences and if they are right or wrong. I've seen these two similar structures and I don't know if is the same to use* I would have preferred to* and *I would have preferred it if...*

I would have preferred the directive to have been adopted.

I would have preferred it if the directive had been adopted.


On balance, whilst progress was made, we would have preferred to have made much more progress.

On balance, whilst progress was made, we would have preferred it if we had made much more progress.


I am one of those who would have preferred the Commission to have been elected three weeks ago.

I am one of those who would have preferred it if your Commission had been elected three weeks ago.


----------



## Spanish Clutz

Todo que has escrito es correcto.


----------



## Otacon

Thank you Spanish Clutz  So, can we say thay are just two different ways to say the same thing?

Allow me to correct you by the way, it should be:

Todo *lo *que has escrito es correcto 


:


----------



## sdox

Estoy de acuerdo con Spanish Clutz, que los ejemplos tienen basicamente el mismo sentido. Prefiero la primera oración en cada ejemplo, porque en mi opinión suenan más elegantes.


----------



## Otacon

Muchas gracias Sdox


----------



## echinocereus

Hi, Otacon, I have some comments about your sentences. I find the first sentence of each of your pairs of examples to be awkward. You have already indicated that you are talking about a past time when you write “I would have preferred.” To add a perfect participle or perfect passive participle in the second part of the sentence is an unnecessary step and sounds overdone. You can avoid the problem in several ways:

I would have preferred that the directive be adopted. 

On balance, while progress was made, we would have preferred to make much more progress. 

I am one of those who would have preferred that the Commission be elected three weeks ago.

There is no need in your initial sentences, Otacon, to point out past time in the first clause and then to underline it with “to have been adopted” and “had made” and “to have been elected.”

Your second sentences are grammatically correct, but they still sound “heavy” with compound forms to me and I would prefer “rewordings” such as I suggested.

Un saludo.


----------



## Otacon

A lot of thanks for your help echinocereus  The source of these sentences is this:

http://es.bab.la/diccionario/ingles-espanol/would-have-preferred

The second ones were made by me as a modification of the originals. 
The originals (that you are refering as awkward) seem to be correct in the source. Maybe it is matter of US English/British? I'm not sure. I'll take into account your corrections though. Thanks


----------



## k-in-sc

They sound wordy and awkward to me too.


----------



## Otacon

k-in-sc, the more I think about what echinocereus said, the more they sound wordy to me too  but from what I have read they seem to be correct. I wish I had more opinions


----------



## k-in-sc

What do you mean by "correct"?
British English sounds excessively formal in the U.S.


----------



## Otacon

k-in-sc said:


> What do you mean by "correct"?
> British English sounds excessively formal in the U.S.



It must be that, the difference between regions what confuses me. I said correct because I've checked sources where english speakers are using these kind of constructions. Or maybe they are in a rather formal context. This is what I've got from one of the sources.

_*"Madam President, this is the first time I have delivered an explanation of vote and it concerns the decision of the Conciliation Committee to adopt the directive on takeover bids, which had been rejected by a tied vote by Parliament. In one respect, I am sorry because I would have preferred the directive to have been adopted. "

*__*
*_I've seen constructions like this in many other web sites._*

*_


----------



## echinocereus

Hi again, Otacon, I just read a number of the example sentences indicated in your citation and I'm sorry to tell you but a number of those examples do not sound natural in English.


----------



## echinocereus

Yes, Otacon, I too have seen and heard such constructions from the pens and mouths of English speakers and I repeat that in my view they are not "best English."  The sentence you just posted above is an example:  "... I would have preferred the directive to have been adopted."  That construction makes me cringe.  I would have worded it differently, for example:  "I would have preferred that the directive be adopted" or even "I would have preferred the directive to be adopted."  It's confusing to hear a lot of opinions from varied sources, isn't it?  Perhaps other English speakers will have more help for you.  Buena suerte.


----------



## Spanish Clutz

Hola Octacon:

Muchas gracias por corregir mi español. 

In my post I was responding to your question: I'd like to know the difference between these sentences and if they are right or wrong. I've seen these two similar structures and I don't know if is the same to use (if they have the same usage) "I would have preferred to" and "I would have preferred it if... " 

In my opinion your sentences are correct and there isn’t any difference in meaning between the presented pairs that I can detect. However, my personal preference is for the second sentence in each pair. 

If I were to re-write the first sentence options, I would do the following: 

I would have preferred that the directive had been adopted.

On the balance, while progress was made, we would have preferred to have made much more progress.

I am one of those who would have preferred that the Commission had been elected three weeks ago. 

To my ears, in general, it does sound better to keep tense usage consistent throughout a sentence. However, having said that, I understand Echinocereus’s points, and consider his/her re-writes to be just fine. I believe that in this situation, it's a matter of style and personal preference.


----------



## Otacon

echinocereus said:


> Yes, Otacon, I too have seen and heard such constructions from the pens and mouths of English speakers and I repeat that in my view they are not "best English."  The sentence you just posted above is an example:  "... I would have preferred the directive to have been adopted."  That construction makes me cringe.  I would have worded it differently, for example:  "I would have preferred that the directive be adopted" or even "I would have preferred the directive to be adopted."  It's confusing to hear a lot of opinions from varied sources, isn't it?  Perhaps other English speakers will have more help for you.  Buena suerte.



Muchas gracias echinocereus  Sí que es confuso ver diferentes construcciones y no saber exactamente si son diferentes por el contexto o por la región haha, pero me has sido de gran ayuda, siempre es bueno saber que es lo que se oye más natural al hablar y gracias a tu post ahora me centraré más en eso. Muchas gracias, le daré una estudiada a oraciones más parecidas a las que has puesto


----------



## Otacon

Spanish Clutz said:


> Hola Octacon:
> 
> Muchas gracias por corregir mi español.
> 
> In my post I was responding to your question: I'd like to know the difference between these sentences and if they are right or wrong. I've seen these two similar structures and I don't know if isthe same to use (if they have the same usage) "I would have preferred to" and "I would have preferred it if... "
> 
> In my opinion your sentences are correct and there isn’t any difference in meaning between the presented pairs that I can detect. However, my personal preference is for the second sentence in each pair.
> 
> If I were to re-write the first sentence options, I would do the following:
> 
> I would have preferred that the directive had been adopted.
> 
> On the balance, while progress was made, we would have preferred to have made much more progress.
> 
> I am one of those who would have preferred that the Commission had been elected three weeks ago.
> 
> To my ears, in general, it does sound better to keep tense usage consistent throughout a sentence. However, having said that, I understand Echinocereus’s points, and consider his/her re-writes to be just fine. I believe that in this situation, it's a matter of style and personal preference.



Muchas gracias por aclararlo y explicar de nuevo Spanish Clutz, me sirve mucho para estudiar y aprender varias posibilidades y estilos


----------



## k-in-sc

I guess the question is whether you want to talk like members of Parliament or the U.N., or like regular people


----------



## echinocereus

Are you suggesting, K-in-sc, that there is no option "in between"?


----------



## k-in-sc

What is the "in-between" option here?


----------



## echinocereus

What do you mean, K-in-sc, by "regular people"?  Perhaps I should have asked you that before replying.


----------



## k-in-sc

People whose line of work doesn't require parliamentary-level speech, I guess.


----------



## echinocereus

OK, K-in-sc, that does seem like a very broad category to me.  I meant that there are a number of levels of speech between that of a member of Parliament and that which is used to speak to a 6-year-old child.


----------



## loudspeaker

Otacon said:


> I would have preferred the directive to have been adopted.



On this side of the pond you can also say... 


I would rather/prefer the directive had been adopted. 

Both would rather/sooner and would prefer can be followed by the perfect infinitive:

We went by sea but I'd rather have gone by air.


----------



## echinocereus

Hi, Loudspeaker, Your sentences sound fine on this side of the pond too.  I would avoid the use of a perfect in the first clause followed by another perfect.


----------



## echinocereus

There is an error in my first post on page 1.  I referred to participles and should have said infinitives.  Very sorry.


----------



## loudspeaker

echinocereus said:


> Hi, Loudspeaker, I would avoid the use of a perfect in the first clause followed by another perfect.




Hi, Echinocereus 
Adding a perfect infinitive in the second part of the sentence might sound overdone, but I don't think it is incorrect. 
Oh, and this particular case is not a BrE/AmE thing, as k-in-sc has 'suggested'.


----------



## Otacon

loudspeaker said:


> On this side of the pond you can also say...
> 
> 
> I would rather/prefer the directive had been adopted.
> 
> Both would rather/sooner and would prefer can be followed by the perfect infinitive:
> 
> We went by sea but I'd rather have gone by air.



So is it correct to say:

I Would prefer the directive to had been adopted

Instead of: 

I would *have* prefer*red* *it if* the directive had been adopted

?

This whole thing is so confusing to me haha, it looks like there are many constructions depending on context, region and style.


----------



## Spanish Clutz

"I would prefer the directive to had been adopted."

"I would *have* prefer*red* *it if* the directive had been adopted."  

In my opinion, both are correct.  I understand your confusion, Otacon, and I agree with your statement, "it looks like there are many constructions depending on context, region and style."  My personal preference is for the second choice, but that is just my preference.  No te preocupes, Octagon.  Your English is amazing!


----------



## echinocereus

Oops, no "had" after that "to" - the expression would be "to have been adopted." I suspect we are all tired after such a long and busy thread.  

I would like to repeat the two least "cumbersome" forms, in my view, of the statement above:  "I would prefer _(that)_ the directive had been adopted" or "I would have preferred _(that)_ the directive be adopted."  

Saludos.


----------



## Otacon

echinocereus and Spanish Clutz, a thousand thanks!  thanks for being so patient with me. I will take into account all your sentences and try to understand it as a whole since there are many "styles", you guys have been quite helpful. Spanish Clutz your spanish is amazing too!


----------



## k-in-sc

How about dispensing with all the cumbersome constructions and just picking a simple alternative like "I wish it had been adopted" or "It would have been better if they had adopted it."


----------



## SevenDays

Yes, simplicity always works. What's cumbersome in the other constructions is that the direct object of "preferred" is not "the directive" (_I would have preferred the directive_...) but something "about" the directive, which takes a complex structure, either a that-clause (_I would have preferred that the directive_...), or a dummy "it" with an if-clause (_I would have preferred it if_...). Complex structures are not wrong, but they may be hard to follow.
Cheers


----------



## k-in-sc

Yes, that's exactly it. Right as usual


----------



## echinocereus

You know, 30-odd posts ago, Otacon asked us for help with some sentences that involved perfects and passives, beginning with:  “I would have preferred the directive to have been adopted” and “I would have preferred it if the directive had been adopted.”  I think we have given him a lot of suggestions and good options.  Saludos a todos.


----------



## k-in-sc

Well, my suggestion is "avoid whenever possible."


----------



## ProfeAmanda

sdox said:


> Estoy de acuerdo con Spanish Clutz, que los ejemplos tienen basicamente el mismo sentido. Prefiero la primera oración en cada ejemplo, porque en mi opinión suenan más elegantes.



Estoy de acuerdo con sdox.  They do sound a little wordy as later suggested, but to me that's the nature of these sentences.  They use ideas and/or vocabulary with which I would expect some wordiness.  In my everyday conversations I would use the second example of each, but if I'm trying to dress up my language a bit to fit a certain occasion, audience, or topic I may choose the first.  Nothing here sounds wrong to me, just a little overdone.


----------



## echinocereus

I think that perfects and passives, constructed well and used appropriately, are a part of the beauty of our language and of other languages.


----------



## k-in-sc

Sure, everything has its place. But Spanish speakers in particular should be aware that passives in English are much weaker than their counterparts in Spanish.


----------



## echinocereus

In what way "weaker"?


----------



## k-in-sc

https://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=passive+weak+construction


----------

