# Even if he <had> found some secret way out



## thetazuo

Every gate was closed and barred and heavily guarded, though; no one was allowed to enter or depart the castle without Lord Bolton’s leave. Even if he found some secret way out, Theon would not have trusted it. He had not forgotten Kyra and her keys. And if he did get out, where would he go? 
(A Dance with Dragons, novel)

Hi. I wonder why the underlined part isn’t “Even if he *had* found some secret way out”, so that the whole sentence can become a standard third conditional?
Thank you.


----------



## Glasguensis

You’ll need to ask George R R Martin. There is no grammatical reason for this choice and no difference in meaning.


----------



## thetazuo

Glasguensis said:


> You’ll need to ask George R R Martin. There is no grammatical reason for this choice and no difference in meaning.


Thank you. I think there is a difference, but I don’t know if my thinking is right?
I think the original sentence means  _Whether he found some secret way out, Theon had very probably not trusted it._
If I change it into a third conditional, then it means “He didn’t found some secret way out so no doubt he did not trust it”.
Right?


----------



## Glasguensis

My interpretation of « found » and « had found » here is identical, and is that Theon had not found a way out and even if he did find one he wouldn’t trust it.


----------



## thetazuo

Glasguensis said:


> My interpretation of « found » and « had found » here is identical, and is that Theon had not found a way out and even if he did find one he wouldn’t trust it.


Thank you again. But the original sentence is not a third conditional, so out of what reason do you think “found” is as counterfactual as “had found”?
And do you think the original is a mixed conditional?


----------



## Myridon

With "found", we might assume that because there's no point in looking, that he didn't even try.  With "had found", it seems that he probably looked for some secret ways (and that time was probably wasted since he had no intention of using them ).


----------



## thetazuo

Myridon said:


> With "found", we might assume that because there's no point in looking, that he didn't even try.  With "had found", it seems that he probably looked for some secret ways (and that time was probably wasted since he had no intention of using them ).


Thank you. So is the original sentence an implied third conditional?


----------



## Glasguensis

Not really - the context makes it clear that we are referring to the present timeframe and not only the past. We understand that Theon is not going to trust a secret way out whether it is one he already knows about or one he discovers now. If you need to put a label on it I’d say it’s a mixed conditional, but I personally don’t see any need to put a label on it. Note that native speakers do not learn these categories of conditional and that we often use constructs which don’t really fit into the system at all.


----------



## thetazuo

Glasguensis said:


> Not really - the context makes it clear that we are referring to the present timeframe and not only the past. We understand that Theon is not going to trust a secret way out whether it is one he already knows about or one he discovers now.


Thank you. So do you think my understanding of the original sentence in post 3 (see the underlined part) is right? Or do you mean “would not have trusted it” refers to the future?


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> So do you think my understanding of the original sentence in post 3 (see the underlined part) is right?


I don't understand the underlined part in #3. It isn't grammatical and the meaning isn't clear.


thetazuo said:


> _Whether he found some secret way out, Theon had very probably not trusted it._




I don't understand the sentence below either. It seems contradictory to me. If he hadn't found a way out, there was nothing to trust, so I don't see how "no doubt he did not trust it" comes into it.


thetazuo said:


> He didn’t found some secret way out so no doubt he did not trust it




To answer your original question, I agree that "Even if he had found some secret way out" sounds a better choice. "Even if he found some secret way out"  would have gone better with "Theon wasn't going to trust it". I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a typo.


----------



## boozer

And I tend to disagree that here 'found' and 'had found' mean the same. They don't.

In fact, I agree with Myridon. The implication is that (in this past narration) Theon might have kept looking, but there was no point. If I had to label this, I would say it was a regular type 1 conditional narrated in past tense:
_Even if he finds some secret way out, Theon will not... - present tense
Even if he found some secret way out, Theon would not... - past tense.
_
The author puts us at a point in time in the past where Theon is thinking about what he wants to do in the immediate future, i.e. his immediate future. 'Had found' would change the meaning. It would suggest Theon had looked everywhere and failed to find a way out.

Edit: I believe it is 'would not have trusted it' that muddies the water here. I would have said 'would not trust'.


----------



## Glasguensis

I must admit that the nuance suggested by Myridon hadn’t occurred to me when I originally answered, and there is some merit in it. But I repeat my original remark: only the author can really say why he chose that form. This is not a question where there is an established grammar or usage.


----------



## boozer

Glasguensis said:


> This is not a question where there is an established grammar or usage.


Yes, that is true.
The thing is, 'would' has two distinct meanings - a) it is the past tense of 'will' and b) it is a modal verb in its own right. 
You can easily say 'he would not trust it' to refer to the present and the story goes in the past tense. So you have to make it look even 'paster' to make sure it fits the general tense (past) of the story. So you resort to 'he would not have trusted it'. However, the latter coincides, rather inconveniently in this case, with a type 3 conditional verb form. 

Of course, while reading this, people's attention is focused on the story, not the grammar. Tazuo keeps asking things that I never paid attention to while reading the books, which means that I never stopped to think, baffled by the grammar used.


----------



## JJXR

In my opinion, the sentence in the OP is an open past conditional. Since the reader doesn't know whether or not Theon found a secret way out, they have to make a deduction about what happened. Here's one of my threads where the same pattern is discussed.


thetazuo said:


> Every gate was closed and barred and heavily guarded, though; no one was allowed to enter or depart the castle without Lord Bolton’s leave. *Even if he found some secret way out**, Theon would not have trusted it.* He had not forgotten Kyra and her keys. And if he did get out, where would he go?


I think the author's intention is this: after the reader has read the bolded sentence, the reasoning below should come to the reader's mind:

I don't know whether or not Theon found a secret way out. However, there are two possibilities: 

(1) He did find it. Then, in that case, he presumably didn't trust it. 

(2) He didn't find it. But even if he had, he presumably wouldn't have trusted it anyway.

In other words, it doesn't matter whether or not Theon found a secret way out, he didn't believe there was one he could trust.


thetazuo said:


> I wonder why the underlined part isn’t “Even if he *had* found some secret way out”, so that the whole sentence can become a standard third conditional?


If the sentence in the OP was a third conditional, then the reasoning below would come to the reader's mind:

I know that Theon didn't find a secret way out, so there's only one possibility:

(1) Theon didn't find a secret way out. But even if he had, he presumably wouldn't have trusted it anyway.

In other words, Theon didn't find a secret way out, and he didn't believe there was one he could trust.


----------



## Truffula

My interpretation is this:

Theon has not found some secret way out, but he might still find one (the possibility remains open).  But if he does find one, he won't trust it.

Then, as boozer explains above, it is narrated in past tense. 

Also keep in mind what Glasguensis says: "native speakers do not learn these categories of conditional and that we often use constructs which don’t really fit into the system at all."

The 'types' of conditionals are a useful guide to understanding for language learners, but do not 100% accurately reflect the way most native speakers (ones not engaged in teaching English as a second language) construct or think about conditionals.

Perhaps rephrasing it like this would make it clearer:

"Theon saw no point in looking for a secret way out, because even if he found one, he would expect it to be a trap."


----------



## JJXR

boozer said:


> The implication is that (in this past narration) Theon might have kept looking, but there was no point. If I had to label this, I would say it was a regular type 1 conditional narrated in past tense:
> _Even if he finds some secret way out, Theon will not... - present tense
> Even if he found some secret way out, Theon would not... - past tense._





Truffula said:


> Theon has not found some secret way out, but he might still find one (the possibility remains open). But if he does find one, he won't trust it.


But for that interpretation to make sense a different tense should be used in the main clause of the conditional sentence, as boozer says in his post #11:


boozer said:


> Edit: I believe it is 'would not have trusted it' that muddies the water here. I would have said 'would not trust'.


----------



## Truffula

I disagree, for the exact reason boozer goes on to say, that "would" has two meanings and a different tense is not _required_ for that interpretation.  Only that a different tense would make that interpretation more evident to non-native readers.  To a native English reader, it's clear as-is.

To me, "If Theon found a way out, he would not have trusted it" seems more natural than "If Theon found a way out, he would not trust it" - maybe it is because the reason for the mistrust predates the finding.  The latter one implies he would start mistrusting when he finds it.  But really he already mistrusts the as-yet-not-found way out.


----------



## boozer

Thanks, Truffula. Are you a mind reader? I can't have said it so well.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for your responses, Truffula and boozer.


boozer said:


> Thanks, Truffula. Are you a mind reader? I can't have said it so well.


I wonder if it would be correct for a narrator to say this:

_1. Even though JJXR knows he may be wrong, he posts his opinion. Truffula disagrees with JJXR's post. Boozer says that Truffula is a mind reader. Even if Truffula confirms that he's a mind reader, JJXR *will not have believed* him.

2. Even though JJXR knew he might be wrong, he posted his opinion. Truffula disagreed with JJXR's post. Boozer said that Truffula was a mind reader. Even if Truffula confirmed that he was a mind reader, JJXR *would not have believed* him.
_
Is "will/would not have believed" more natural than "will/would not believe"?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

There's a great difference between the two:

_Even if he found some secret way out, Theon would not have trusted it_ - he might still find a way.

_Even if he had found some secret way out, Theon would not have trusted it_ - we know he hasn't found a way.


----------



## Truffula

@JJXR -- 2 sounds natural to me and mostly parallel with the original example, as you probably intended, JJXR.  The impression given is that you already don't believe I'm a mind reader, and don't expect me to confirm that I am, but the possibility exists.

1 sounds artful as narration in present tense often does.  It takes a very good writer to make it sound natural, and constructs like "will not have believed" are challenging even to a very good writer.  But I don't think it sounds _incorrect._  A copyeditor might take exception, but an ordinary reader would probably not notice anything odd.

(xposted with Thomas Tompion)

@Thomas Tompion -- I agree with you.  What do you think of the difference between



> Even if he found some secret way out, Theon would not have trusted it  (- he might still find a way.)
> 
> Even if he found some secret way out, Theon would not trust it  ??



----
added later:  

I just saw a great post about conditionals on another thread.  Thanks SevenDays!



SevenDays said:


> Mixed conditionals and conditionals I, II, III is just a way of _teaching _about conditional sentences. In your own use, you can use this "teaching" method as guide; you'll never go wrong. In actual usage, however, _language_ is not required to follow this teaching method.
> 
> In actual usage (which is another way of saying "in context"), participants _know _what they are talking about, and so they don't need specific _linguistic markers _to set up their speech. If "not studying computers in high school" is known as factual (i.e., something that didn't happen in high school), then both "didn't study" and "hadn't study" are _pragmatically equivalent_; either one _can _be used; after all, both "didn't" and "hadn't" are past forms. Beyond that, "might" is a modal verb, and modal verbs don't show "tense." What this means is that the meaning of "you might find this course difficult" is contextual; it can refer to the past or present, depending on overall meaning. Context _always_ matters.
> 
> What you've learned about conditionals is not a "rule," but it's useful to a learner. Instead of focusing on all the _possible _verb combinations that can appear in conditional sentences, the focus is placed on a few, and that makes the _teaching _and the_ learning_ of conditionals much easier. As I said, you can follow the traditional teaching method; just don't be surprised if you come across examples that don't neatly fall into the "conditional categories" that you've learned.


----------



## boozer

JJXR said:


> I wonder if it would be correct for a narrator to say this:
> 
> _ Even if Truffula confirms that he's a mind reader, JJXR *will not have believed* him._


There is one other factor here, JJ. Unlike 'would have thought/believed/considered, etc.' - all more or less fixed expressions used in past-time pseudo-conditionals - 'will have believed' is not an established phrase. Indeed, it is a correct verb form for the future perfect, but it requires some very special context to work. A context that you simply do not have here. *I'd've thought* you saw that. 

And then, there is one other thing, too. The past tense narration is just a literary tool, of sorts. However, it is a tool that requires the author to place all verb tenses in line with it, as you know full well.

_Even if he found some secret way out, Theon would not have trusted it_ - the conditional here is not expressed by the author himself. There is no doubt in the author's mind. However, because the author is inside the head of Theon, he can reveal to us Theon's doubts and conditional actions as they take root and unfold. The story unfolds now (at the moment of writing) in the author's head, but he relates it to us in the past tense (because we are going to read it after the moment of writing), so he has to adjust his language to it. Well, in this case he simply 'over-adjusted' it, in a way. He could have said 'Theon would not trust it'. Instead, he went a step further and said 'Theon would not have trusted it'...


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Truffula said:


> @Thomas Tompion -- I agree with you. What do you think of the difference between
> 
> Even if he found some secret way out, Theon would not have trusted it.
> 
> Even if he found some secret way out, Theon would not trust it ??[...]


Very great.

_If he found some secret way out, Theon would not have trusted it_ is what some people call a past open conditional; _past_ because it refers to the past, and _open_ because it leaves open the question of whether or not the condition was met - whether he found a way out or not.

I have sometimes in the past called this form the 'detectives' conditional' because a detective might say 'if the robber went out of the window, he would have left footprints in the flower bed'.  Then whether or not he finds footprints in the flower bed can give him a clue about whether the robber went out of the window.

Of course, Theon's not having trusted it doesn't necessarily leave similarly tangible signs, but the tense has the same power.

_If he found some secret way out, Theon would not trust it_ is a normal 2nd conditional, with all that entails.

Normally it would suggest a hypothetical - suppose Theon found a way out, he wouldn't trust it.  In other words it imagines a future and tells us what Theon's reaction would be in that hypothetical future.  But I don't need to tell you how 2nd conditionals work.

The form of the 2nd conditional can, of course, refer to repeated action in the past, because the conditional can be a form of imperfect in English.  So this form could mean 'Whenever he found some secret way out, Theon used not to trust it'.  In my view, the _even_ in the original precludes this interpretation.


----------



## boozer

Thomas Tompion said:


> I have sometimes in the past called this form the 'detectives' conditional' because a detective might say 'if the robber went out of the window, he would have left footprints in the flower bed'.  Then whether or not he finds footprints in the flower bed can give him a clue about whether the robber went out of the window.


Hi, TT. 
Well, you have given an excellent example of a past open conditional. But I find it different from the one we are working with here. Your detective truly has no idea whether or not the robber went out of the window so the condition is open, just as you say. The author of our book, on the other hand, has all the knowledge he needs, so he is in no doubt whether or not Theon found a way out.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

boozer said:


> Hi, TT.
> Well, you have given an excellent example of a past open conditional. But I find it different from the one we are working with here. Your detective truly has no idea whether or not the robber went out of the window so the condition is open, just as you say. The author of our book, on the other hand, has all the knowledge he needs, so he is in no doubt whether or not Theon found a way out.


Hi Boozer,

Two points:

1.  Writers don't always know what is in the mind of their characters, and are sometimes surprised by what they do.
2.  This writer has chosen the past open conditional form.  I think we have a choice: either we take him as meaning what he says (he meant the detectives' conditional, with all that entails), or we say he's a poor writer and we should be concerned with the ways in which he uses language.


----------



## boozer

Well, I know for a fact that he is a) a very good author and his English is generally great and b) his style is factual and he does know what his characters think.  I ventured an explanation because I have read all 5 _Game of Thrones_ books. I know for a fact he is simply telling us what Theon thought. 

There is one similarity between this type 1 conditional narrated in the past tense and a past open conditional, though: either way, the listener is not told what happened. In a past open conditional the speaker simply does not know what happened. Here, the author does not really want to tell us just yet, although he is telling us what goes through his character's head.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Thanks Boozer.

That is most helpful.

You also have insider knowledge.  I haven't read the guy.


----------



## boozer

Thomas Tompion said:


> I haven't read the guy.


Well, having been on the forum with you for what looks like 10 years already, and having an idea of your taste, maybe his books would not really be your cup of tea... I like this story, though.  Just as an aside.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you all very much. It seems the author has misused the tense here. (JJXR, Truffula, and Thomas Tompion don’t seem to think so, however)

So I’m a bit lost as to whether the original sentence is a proper use of conditional?

I know “would have” can be used in the following way, as opposed to being used in a third conditional:
In the Stone Age people *would have* led a tough life.

Is the above “would have” the same use as the op “would not have trusted it”?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

_In the Stone Age people would have led a tough life_.

That's a past use of the future of probability.

It means _In the Stone Age people very probably led a tough life_.

I don't think that is what we are dealing with in the sentence about Theon.


----------



## thetazuo

Thomas Tompion said:


> _In the Stone Age people would have led a tough life_.
> 
> That's a past use of the future of probability.
> 
> It means _In the Stone Age people very probably led a tough life_.
> 
> I don't think that is what we are dealing with in the sentence about Theon.



Thank you, TT. If this example is neither a third conditional nor what I call assumption use (as in the Stone Age example), then I would have a hard time understanding it.
Having read others’ replies, I still don’t quite get why the author uses “would not have trusted” instead of “would not trust”. I have read JJXR’s and truffula’s reasonings, but I’m not quite convinced. So may I know your reasoning, TT?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

thetazuo said:


> Thank you, TT. If this example is neither a third conditional nor what I call assumption use (as in the Stone Age example), then I would have a hard time understanding it.
> Having read others’ replies, I still don’t quite get why the author uses “would not have trusted” instead of “would not trust”. I have read JJXR’s and truffula’s reasonings, but I’m not quite convinced. So may I know your reasoning, TT?


Look at my posts, please.


----------



## Glasguensis

I think we’ve all understood that you are having difficulty understanding it, but that’s probably because you are trying to analyse it grammatically and put a label on it. Native speakers have no problem understanding it, very probably because we were never taught about types of conditional and generally don’t use grammatical analysis in interpreting sentences such as this one.


----------



## boozer

thetazuo said:


> Thank you, TT. If this example is neither a third conditional nor what I call assumption use (as in the Stone Age example), then I would have a hard time understanding it.


Do you understand the simplest kind of conditional sentences? Type 1 conditionals? E.g. _If he finds a way out, Theon will not trust it_.

Then, I suppose you understand that the author is telling the story in the past tense?

Put the two together and try to figure out what the sentence says.  Do not label it in terms of standard conditionals, which often undergo changes when narrated in the past tense. Once narrated in the past tense, a type 1 conditional will look very much like a type 2 conditional or a mixed conditional or something similar. But it is not.


----------



## thetazuo

boozer said:


> Put the two together and try to figure out what the sentence says.


Thank you, boozer. If I put the two together, I get a backshifted first conditional “Even if he found some secret way out, Theon would not trust it.”, where does “would not have” come in? Maybe the only reason is that the mistrust predates the finding, as truffula suggests. Or perhaps it is just a looseness in the sentence construction where the author intends it as a third conditional.


Thomas Tompion said:


> Look at my posts, please.


Yes. I have read it. But it is a bit far-fetching to say it is a detective’s conditional since the mistrust hardly gives any clue as to whether he found a secret way out.


----------



## boozer

thetazuo said:


> Maybe the only reason is that the mistrust predates the finding, as truffula suggests.


If that is the case, there must be a degree of misunderstanding between me and Truffula. 
The mistrust cannot and does not pre-date the finding. The mistrust will appear at the time of finding what looks like a way out. 



thetazuo said:


> Or perhaps it is just a looseness in the sentence construction where the author intends it as a third conditional.


Now, that is completely out of the question, as far as I am concerned.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for your responses, Truffula and boozer.


Truffula said:


> To me, "If Theon found a way out, he would not have trusted it" seems more natural than "If Theon found a way out, he would not trust it" - maybe it is because the reason for the mistrust predates the finding. The latter one implies he would start mistrusting when he finds it. But really he already mistrusts the as-yet-not-found way out.


I think I now understand how that reasoning works. The verb "trust" is stative. Let's assume that point A is earlier in time than point B, and that point B, in turn, is earlier in time than point C: point A is in the past, point B is in the present, and point C is in the future. Mathematically, this can be presented as follows: A < B < C.

With that in mind, if I were to paraphrase thetazuo's narrative (post #1) using the present tense, I would do it as:

_At point B, every gate *is* closed and barred and heavily guarded, though; no one *is* allowed to enter or depart the castle without Lord Bolton’s leave. Theon *has* *started* to mistrust earlier, at point A. Theon *is* now at point B. Even if Theon *finds* a way out at point C, the state of mistrust *will have existed* since point A up to point C._

If I were to paraphrase it using the past tense, I would do it as:

_At point B, every gate *was* closed and barred and heavily guarded, though; no one *was* allowed to enter or depart the castle without Lord Bolton’s leave. Theon *had started* to mistrust earlier, at point A. Theon *was* now at point B. Even if Theon *found* a way out at point C, the state of mistrust *would have existed* since point A up to point C._

Suppose point A was furthermost in the past, point B was later in the past than point A, and point C was in the present (A < B < C). If I were at point C looking at Theon who had just found a secret way out, I would use the present perfect to describe a state that had existed since point A. This is what I would say:
_
At point B, every gate *was* closed and barred and heavily guarded, though; no one *was* allowed to enter or depart the castle without Lord Bolton’s leave. Theon *had started *to mistrust earlier, at point A. Theon *is* now at point C. Now that Theon *has found* a secret way out, the state of mistrust *has existed* since point A up to the present (point C).
_
I see "will have existed", "would have existed", and "has existed" as parallel, each denoting a period of time lasting up to a certain point in time. The same applies in the case of "will not have trusted", "would not have trusted", and "has not trusted".


Thomas Tompion said:


> _If he found some secret way out, Theon would not have trusted it_ is what some people call a past open conditional; _past_ because it refers to the past, and _open_ because it leaves open the question of whether or not the condition was met - whether he found a way out or not.


That's my interpretation of it (post #14).


Thomas Tompion said:


> if the robber went out of the window, he would have left footprints in the flower bed


This sentence can be interpreted as a past open conditional: "I don't know whether or not the robber went out of the window. If he did, then I deduce he left his footprints in the flower bed. If he didn't, then I deduce the contrary."


Thomas Tompion said:


> Of course, Theon's not having trusted it doesn't necessarily leave similarly tangible signs, but the tense has the same power.


That being the case, the following should be true:


thetazuo said:


> Even if he found some secret way out, Theon would not have trusted it.


There's nothing to prevent us from interpreting thetazuo's sentence in the same way as the sentence about the robber. At least, as far as the tenses are concerned, that is a possibility. Which, of course, does not prevent us from interpreting it the way Truffula, boozer, and the others in this thread do.


boozer said:


> The author puts us at a point in time in the past where Theon is thinking about what he wants to do in the immediate future, i.e. his immediate future.


It is possible to look forward to the event, as boozer does in post #11.


JJXR said:


> I think the author's intention is this: after the reader has read the bolded sentence, the reasoning below should come to the reader's mind:
> 
> I don't know whether or not Theon found a secret way out. However, there are two possibilities:
> 
> (1) He did find it. Then, in that case, he presumably didn't trust it.
> 
> (2) He didn't find it. But even if he had, he presumably wouldn't have trusted it anyway.


It is possible to look back at the event, as a detective would do, and as I do in post #14.


----------



## Truffula

This long explanation works perfectly well, JJXR, and I think you've solved it.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, Truffula.


boozer said:


> The mistrust cannot and does not pre-date the finding. The mistrust will appear at the time of finding what looks like a way out.


In that case, the tense should be "would not trust", as you said in post #11:


boozer said:


> Edit: I believe it is 'would not have trusted it' that muddies the water here. I would have said 'would not trust'.


----------



## boozer

I know JJ. I said that and I still believe it. However, authors will sometimes use a phrase that sounds better to them, one they are more used to, one that rolls off the tongue. That is the only way in which I can explain 'would not have trusted'. That is the point at which I leave strict grammar analysis aside.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you all.


JJXR said:


> Even if Theon *finds* a way out at point C, the state of mistrust *will have existed* since point A up to point C.


This sentence strikes me as a bit strange. I think “will have done” is usually use with “by”, not “since”.
Anyway, do you guys think the example in this thread is the same use as this example?
If the Sand Snakes *were* imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely *would have* heard her shouting.
they surely would have heard her


----------



## boozer

While re-reading a book I read as a child, I came upon this example. I would not have paid any attention to it, were it not for this thread, of course. The book is 'Rendezvous with Rama' by Arthur Clarke and the author dwells on the thoughts of the character after he realises how dangerous his mission is. He is about to fly the length of an artificial world on a flimsy air-bike, of sorts:

_'If he came down in the Sea, he would probably drown, quite unpleasantly, in its poisonous waters. And even if he made a safe landing in the southern continent, it might be impossible to rescue him before Endeavour had to break away from Rama's sunward orbit.'_

All of this is straightforward type 1 conditionals narrated in the past tense. In the underlined part, I can easily imagine the author saying 'he would probably have drowned' instead of what he did say. 



thetazuo said:


> Anyway, do you guys think the example in this thread is the same use as this example?
> If the Sand Snakes *were* imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely *would have* heard her shouting.
> they surely would have heard her


And, no Tazuo. They are not similar. In that other thread, you have a situation where the author describes how the Princess of Dorne really has no idea if they heard her.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, boozer. I didn’t realize whether the character knows the condition is fulfilled or not really matters.

In the op example, Theon knows whether he has found some secret way out. But the condition is still an open one, so in this sense, the two examples are similar in construction.
That said, I’m still more inclined to think it is just a minor technical looseness in sentence construction, and there is no real intentional difference in meaning compared to "Even if he *had* found ...".

Edit: I think the only reason why he author uses simple past instead of past perfect is that the author doesn’t want us to know whether the condition is not fulfilled at this point of the narration — he is deliberately trying to be vague.


----------



## boozer

thetazuo said:


> In the op example, Theon knows whether he has found some secret way out. But the condition is still an open one...


No, no, no. Theon does not know if he *will* find. Future.


thetazuo said:


> That said, I’m still more inclined to think it is just a minor technical looseness in sentence construction, and there is no real intentional difference in meaning compared to "Even if he *had* found ..."


Of course, you are free to follow your inclinations, Tazuo, but the sentence that follows, _And if he did get out, where *would* he go?_, clearly indicates that he is contemplating an escape. Strictly *future*, relative to the point at which Theon was in the story.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, boozer. 


boozer said:


> Theon does not know if he *will* find. Future.


Then I think the only difference between the op example and the Princess of Dorne example is that the the condition part in the former refers to the past while that in the latter refers to the future. Otherwise, I don’t see any difference.


boozer said:


> but the sentence that follows, _And if he did get out, where *would* he go?_, clearly indicates that he is contemplating an escape. Strictly *future*, relative to the point at which Theon was in the story.


If the sentence in question is in the future, perhaps “would not trust it” is better, as you said. To the best of my knowledge, “would have” has a future reference only when it refers to something that will not happen.


----------

