# EN: had <subject> + past participle / if <subject> had + past participle



## mjoblo

I'm trying to find errors in an article and I wonder if the following is a correct structure:" It is possible that they may have behaved differently than they normally would have had they not been participating in the study."
My problem is with the last 'they'?? Of course, we understand but it doesn't seem correct to me. What do you think?

*Moderator note:* Multiple threads merged to create this one.


----------



## tannen2004

I don't see anything wrong with it.  Why do you think the last "they" is a problem?


----------



## mjoblo

I would have said something like: "....than they normally would have IF they would not have been participating..."
Or: "...than they normally would have, not participating in..."


----------



## Yukago1234

That sentence seems correct and I can understand the message. However, this sounds better to me...

_If they were not participating in the study, it is possible that they would have behaved differently than if they were participating in the study._

If you use the other sentence, 

_It is possible that they may have behaved differently than they normally would have*,* had they not been participating in the study. _


----------



## tannen2004

mjoblo said:


> I would have said something like: "....than they normally would have IF they would not have been participating..."
> Or: "...than they normally would have, not participating in..."



I agree, but "had" is not incorrect.  Here the "if" is understood.  It would be "if they had not been participating" but for a more literary sound we play with the sentence and say "had they not been..."


----------



## mjoblo

So you don't think that 'they' is a  grammar problem at all? 
Je vais traduire en français ce que je comprends: "C'est possible qu'ils aient agit différement qu'ils auraient fait normalement si ils n'avaient pas participé à l'étude." En français, j'ai absolument du besoin du mot 'si' dans cette structure. Sinon, j'aurais traduit comme suit: "...qu'ils l'auraient fait normalement n'étant pas participants à l'étude." alors, je n'ai pas utiliser le 'ils' à nouveau.
À moins que ça veule dire: "...qu'ils l'auraient fait normalement, eux, n'étant pas pas participants à l'étude."C'est sûrement ce que la phrase veut dire si tu n'y vois pas d'erreur, n'est-ce pas?


----------



## tannen2004

"They" ne pose aucun problème en anglais.  La phrase est correcte au niveau grammatical bien qu'elle soit lourde.  C'est vrai qu'elle ne se rend pas facilement en français.  Je pense qu'il faut en français ajouter le si pour grader la structure de la phrase (ce qui serait d'ailleurs une traduction de la formulation moins formelle "It is possible that they may have behaved differently than they normally would have if they not been participating in the study").  Mais, à vrai dire, je trouve votre deuxième proposition plus jolie et plus claire (elle est même plus claire que la phrase d'origine  ) et je pense que je la traduirais comme ça si j'en faisais la traduction.


----------



## mjoblo

merci, c'est + clair ainsi....mais...juste pour être certaine...'they' alone would be translated by/with? 'eux' in this literary context?


----------



## dandanaz

No; in this clause "they" is the subject of "had," not the object.  So consider it equivalent to "ils."  It is a peculiar construction but it's grammatically correct and it sounds fine in English. 
"(1)Had they participated" = "(2)If they had participated" = "S'ils avaient participé"

(1) and (2) mean the very same thing grammatically, but (1) sounds more literary and (2) more conversational.

However, I think this sentence sounds awkward for other reasons.  I would change the first clause to:

"It is possible that they would have behaved differently..."

The proposition _they behaved differently_ is counterfactual (i.e. it is clearly not what really happened), so it needs a conditional verb such as "might have," "could have," or "would have."  I suggest using "would have" because the other two are redundant in combination with "It is possible that."

Also, I think the whole phrase "than they normally would have" is unnecessary.  You will still convey the same meaning if you say:

"It is possible that they would have behaved differently had they not been participating in the study."


----------



## ruffiniere

Is it correct to say "Had Peter worked harder during the year, he wouldn't have made such a mess of his exams." If so, how does it sound compare to "If Peter had worked...". Any difference? Thank you for your help.


----------



## Machmach

Il n'y aucune différence de sens entre les deux. 
La structure du "Had + Sujet + Participe Passé" est une structure plus poussée que le basique: "If + Sujet + Had + Participe Passé"


----------



## jann

_Had he worked... _= very nice, but not used in speech (only in writing)
_If he had worked... _= perfectly correct, used in speech (and also in writing)


----------



## radagasty

I'm not sure I would state it as strongly as that. I can imagine situations wherein the first form would be quite natural in speech.


----------



## jann

Yes, I was perhaps too emphatic.  I'm sure there are situations where you might say "had he worked...," but they are rare; this inverted structure is just too formal/elegant for everyday speech.


----------



## dmmmdFLL

ruffiniere said:


> Is it correct to say "Had Peter worked harder during the year, he wouldn't have made such a mess of his exams." If so, how does it sound compare to "If Peter had worked...". Any difference? Thank you for your help.


 
Both forms are correct, and if I be not mistaken, they are actually in the subjunctive mood in English. While it is slowly disappearing, the subjunctive mood does exist in English. Quite often, however, as mentioned by jann, the subjunctive ends up sounding "too elegant," yet it is correct. (See the first sentence in my explaination. Most would say "If I am not mistaken...")

In modern English, the simple present subjunctive is most commonly used in formal commands and requests. In the following examples, the verbs in the simple present subjunctive are underlined. 
e.g. The Queen demands that he leave his post.
My mother requests that we be here tomorrow.

The past tenses of the subjunctive and the auxiliary *would* can also be used in order to indicate that conditions being expressed are false or improbable.
e.g. If Peter *had worked* harder during the year, he *wouldn't* have made such a mess of his exams.
If I *were *a rich man, I *would* not work.

The word order can be changed so that the "if" is eliminated, but the mood is still subjunctive. (It also sounds very formal.)
e.g. *Had* Peter *worked* harder during the year, he *wouldn't* have made such a mess of his exams.
*Were* I a rich man, I *would* not work.

The following was taken from Wikipedia. I am not yet able to post links:
The terms _present subjunctive_ and _past subjunctive_ can be misunderstood, as they describe _forms_ rather than _meanings_. The past and present subjunctives are so called because they resemble the past and present indicatives (respectively), but the difference between them is a difference in modality, not temporality.

For example, in "I asked that it be done yesterday," _be done_ (a present subjunctive) has no present-tense sense. Likewise, in "If that were true, I would know it," _were_ (a past subjunctive) has no past-tense sense and instead describes a counterfactual condition.
​


----------



## jann

dmmmdFLL said:


> Both forms are correct, and if I be not mistaken, they are actually in the subjunctive mood in English.


Hello, DmmmdFLL, 

I beg to disagree! 

"If he had worked harder, he wouldn't have made..." is a perfect example of the classing pairing of the pluperfect tense indicative mood ("had worked") and the past tense conditional mood ("would have made").  Whether we use standard If-Subject-Verb order, or more elegant, inverted Verb-Subject order without "if" makes no difference in the mood.

Certainly, saying "if I were..." instead of "if I was..." is an example of the English subjunctive... but that that is a totally different example sentence than the one in the original question, and it isn't really the topic of this thread (there are many other threads on our forums discussing the English subjunctive in "if" statements).


----------



## dmmmdFLL

Hi Jann,

To answer the original question of ruffiniere's thread, both sentences are correct and are not different. I just wanted to point out that the mood is subjunctive. Your discussion of the tense is correct.

I paraphrased the information I posted straight from an online grammar reference on the subjunctive in English. (The common, hypothetical subjunctive of which you spoke appears not to be the only type. This is news to me, too.) The examples online were nearly the same as the examples given by ruffiniere in his question which is why I decided to post my discovery.

(I am new here so I cannot post links that give a lengthy discussion of the English subjunctive and its tenses. However, just google "inverted syntax past tense subjunctive" to find the information.)

From "The Fact Index":​The hypothetical subjunctive is called for whenever the situation described by the verb is "hypothetical", whether wished-for, feared, or suggested; the common thread is that the situation is _not_ the current state of affairs. Some linguists call this use of the subjunctive the _irrealis_. This is the sense in which some claim that the subjunctive in English is moribund. *This subjunctive can occur with or without a word like if or whether that specifically marks a phrase as hypothetical. When if is omitted, an inverted **syntax** is usually used: (I added the bold.)*​
_Were I the President, I would declare a 35-hour work week._

Ruffiniere's example follows the same pattern of the _irrealis_ subjunctive example from the Fact Index above: "Had Peter worked harder during the year, he wouldn't have made such a mess of his exams."

You are correctly stating the tense of the verbs. I just wanted to point out that the mood was subjunctive, and that the subjunctive in English does not require an "if".

Because the subjunctive is relatively rare, it is no wonder that ruffiniere's irrealis example, "Had Peter worked..", sounded strange to him even though it's correct.

From Wikipedia on grammatical tense:
Tense is one of at least five qualities, along with mood, voice, aspect, and person, which verb forms may express.​
I wanted to give you more than just "It sounds correct."; I wanted to give you the reason that both are correct.

What "sounds" incorrect sometimes is correct, especially regarding colloquial English whether American or British.

I have friends from Britain. I notice that they often use the irrealis form.  I can hear my friend now: "Had he not done that, she wouldn't have had her knickers in a twist."


----------



## Swain

Hello guys,

First of all, I would like to apologize because of the title of my subject but I couldn't find any suitable one.

I was reading the game preview from yesterday's match opposing Barcelona to Arsenal in the Champions league and there was this sentence:

"Arsene Wenger is "convinced" Arsenal would have won their Champions  League last-16 clash at Barcelona *had* Robin van Persie not seen red."

I do understand the meaning of this sentence but I have absolutely no idea what the "had" means. Shouldn't it be:

[...] won their Champions League last-16 clash at Barcelona if Robin van Persie had not seen red.

I actually doubt it is a mistake since it is from an English website but I would really appreciate an explanation regarding the word "had" in this sentence and in which contexts we have to use it.

Best regards,
Swain


----------



## Donaldos

C'est une tournure habituelle en anglais, obtenue par la suppression de la conjonction _if_ et l'inversion sujet-verbe :

_*Had he* not seen ... =  *If he had* not seen ..._

Cette construction appartient cependant à un registre plus soutenu.


----------



## Shaka1333

In the sentence : "Had i known that she was there to meet Ted, of course I wouldn't have done it !" A good translation is probably : "Si j'avais su qu'elle était là pour rencontrer Ted, bien sur que je ne l'aurai pas fait !". It's the first time i see this kind of construction. Is it equivalent to "If I had known" ? or are there any differences ? If yes, what are they ?


----------



## jann

Your translation is just fine. 

[…]


----------



## Lacuzon

Bonsoir,

Pour donner un ordre d'idées, je pense que _Had I known_ peut être comparé à _Eussé-je su._


----------



## Keith Bradford

Yes, but "had I known" is probably more common and less high-flown.


----------



## Maître Capello

Keith Bradford said:


> Yes, but "had I known" is probably more common and less high-flown.


 Definitely!


----------



## timpeac

I agree too.

I think it's worth pointing out though that for _some_ people the structure of "had I..." is almost as strange as "eussé-je" (and I say that as someone who certainly does use it in speech).


----------



## Marseille302

The structure "Had I + _past participle_..." is quite common in speech.

Less typical, in my opinion, would be the same structure using other subjects: 
"Had you....", "Had she...", "Had they...", etc.

All are correct and are used from time to time, but I believe the first person/singular case is the most employed, and it doesn't sound strange at all to my ears.


----------



## Fred_C

Keith Bradford said:


> Yes, but "had I known" is probably more common and less high-flown.



Peu importe, le sens et la construction sont exactement les mêmes.
De toutes façons, la construction «_*Eussé-je su*_ qu'elle était là pour rencontrer Ted ; je ne l'aurais pas fait» est juste une variante morphologique de 
«_*J’aurais su*_ qu’elle était là pour rencontrer Ted ; je ne l'aurais pas fait» (sans “si”), Et cette dernière tournure est très courante.


----------



## Yomoho

Bonjour,

Par analogie avec la formule "Had I known ...", est-ce juste de dire "HadI wanted to ..." pour dire "Si j'avais voulu ..." ?
Pour info, un étudiant l'a vu dans un livre mais je ne sais pas trop pourquoi, ça sonne bizarre je trouve.

PS : Désolé si je me suis trompé de forums, j'avoue être un peu perdu haha. De plus, je ne sais pas si je suis censé écrire en français ou en anglais ? 

Merci d'avance de votre aide


----------



## sound shift

Bonjour,

"Had I wanted to" n'est pas du tout bizarre. Cela équivaut à "If I had wanted to".


----------



## Yomoho

Très bien merci beaucoup (et réponse rapide en plus) 
Est-ce généralisable pour les autres verbes ? Par exemple : "Had I found (a way to do it) ...", "Had I drunk ...", etc. ?


----------



## sound shift

Mais oui!


----------



## nongprue

Bonjour, je vis en Thaïlande et je l'ai quelques fois entendu en pratiquant avec des expatriés anglais.
"had I known" "si j'avais su". 
 comme vous le savez il y a inversion du "verbe / sujet" parce que le "if" est omis.
"eussé-je su" 
?? Wow! quel français!
 que voilà! on se croirait dans un film dans une histoire du moyen-âge!

Selon le contexte "had I known" = "Si j'avais connu.."  mais dans ce sens je ne l'ai jamais entendu.
"Had I known she was married" Si j'avais su qu'elle était mariée.


----------

