# if they were to have done it , we would notice it



## soop

Hi.. I cant understand something about "were to have done"  or "should have done" 

is it possible to say:

"If they were to have done it now, we would notice it"  

or

"if they should have done it now, we would notice it" 

(is still possible they have done it )

in other words, can we refer them to present ? (like a regular 2° hypotetical structure ).

I guess is not possible, so we can only say:

"if they were to have done it yesterday/two hours ago/etc, we would notice it"  

( no chance they have done it )

Thanks


----------



## JamesM

No, "were to have done it" is referring to something in the past.   "If they were to have done it, we would *have* noticed."  It could also be stated as "Had they done it, we would have noticed."

"Were to do it" is possible in your "now" sentence.

"If they were to do it now, we would notice."  (They haven't done it yet but they might in a moment or a year from now)
"If they were doing it now, we would notice."  (They aren't doing it because we don't see any evidence of it)
"If they do it now, we will notice." (We will notice if they do it)


Why would you want to place "now" in your original sentences?  What do you mean by the "now"?   The "we would notice it" means that you haven't noticed it, but you are certain you would have noticed if they had done it.


----------



## wandle

> is it possible to say:
> "If they were to have done it now, we would notice it"


No: as explained by *JamesM*.

However, it is possible to say:
_'If they were to have done it by now, we would be aware of it';_
or the equivalent sentence:
_If they had done it by now, we would already be aware of it'_;
or:
_'If they had already done it, we would be aware of it by now'_.


----------



## soop

wandle said:


> _'If they had already done it, we would be aware of it by now'_.



Yes..that's what I meant with "_if they were to have done it yesterday, we would notice it_" . It would be what grammar books call a mix 3-2 hypotetical structure. You still are expressing something impossible but: first part refer to past, second part (the effect) refer to present. My problem lays on the first part of the sentence and it's regardless of the second part. 
I cant understant if  we can express something still possible with  "_were to have done_" . That's it. (I just tried to assemble a proper context , is not so easy ) 
Thanks friends.


----------



## wandle

_'If they were to have done it'_ is indeed counterfactual: the speaker indicates that the action has not been done and that the time for it has passed.
_'If they have done it'_ is open: the time for the action has passed, but the speaker does not know whether it has been done or not.
_'If they were to do it'_ implies improbability. The speaker indicates that the action has not been done, that the time for it is still to come, and suggests that it is unlikely to be done.

'To notice' in this semantic context means 'to become aware', not 'to be aware'.
Thus 'we would notice it' means we are not aware of it now.


----------



## soop

wandle said:


> _'If they were to have done it'_ is indeed counterfactual: the speaker indicates that the action has not been done and that the time for it has passed.



Ok thanks..this can confuse a no english native speaker because the presence of "were to". the "were to" may suggest a referred to present and still working duty and something still possible (wrongly)


----------



## JamesM

The reason this doesn't refer to something possible is that "were to" has been combined with the present perfect: "have done". However, combined with the infinitive it works differently.  "If I were to kiss you, would you be offended?" refers to something in the present that could happen.


----------



## sunyaer

wandle said:


> _'If they were to have done it'_ is indeed counterfactual: the speaker indicates that the action has not been done and that the time for it has passed.
> 
> ...



Can we say _'If they were to have done it, I would have given them a pass mark'?

_How is it different than "_'If they had done it, I would have given them a pass mark'?

_In post #3 at http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2710748

It says:

"The use of to be followed by a participle is just another way of expressing *the future or a planned event*. You are right in saying that there is no modality in 3a and 3b."

It's in conflict with what we are discussing here: the time that "were to" refers to has passed, as stated in wandle's post above.


----------



## wandle

Good question. The fact is that the verb 'to be' in this type of phrase has more than one meaning and use.

The clause 'if they were to have done it' on its own is ambiguous. 

(a) It may mean 'if it was their duty (or job) to do it'.
_'If they were to have done it, they ought to have reported to the office by 9 o'clock'._
In other words: If it was their job to do it, the first thing they should have done was report to the office by 9 o'clock - but in fact they did not report in.

(b) It may mean 'if it were the case that they had done it' ('if it were true that they had done it').
_'If they were to have done it, I would have given them a pass mark.'_
In other words: If they had done it, I would have given them a pass mark - but in fact they did not do it.

In case (b), 'if they were to have done it' implies that they were not thought likely to do it, whereas 'if they had done it' is neutral as to likelihood.


----------



## sunyaer

wandle said:


> ...
> 
> (b) It may mean 'if it were the case that they had done it' ('if it were true that they had done it').
> _'If they were to have done it, I would have given them a pass mark.'_
> In other words: If they had done it, I would have given them a pass mark - but in fact they did not do it.
> 
> In case (b), 'if they were to have done it' implies that they were not thought likely to do it, whereas 'if they had done it' is neutral as to likelihood.



But in _'If they were to have done it,_ _I would give them a pass mark', _the if clause may refer to real past, is it right?


----------



## wandle

In case (b), the meaning is that they did not do it. The conditional is a counterfactual or unreal hypothesis. In this case, the if-clause represents an unrealised past possiblity: we know it did not happen.


----------



## sunyaer

wandle said:


> In case (b), the meaning is that they did not do it. The conditional is a counterfactual or unreal hypothesis. In this case, the if-clause represents an unrealised past possibility: we know it did not happen.



I have changed _'If they were to have done it, I would have given them a pass mark'  _to _'If they were to have done it, I would give them a pass mark', "would have given" _being changed to _"would give",  _the if clause in the latter may refer to real past, is that possible?


----------



## e2efour

Without a context I have no idea what_ If they were to have done it_ means.
In what way does it differ from _If they had done it_?


----------



## wandle

Except in a case such as sentence (a) in post 9, the conditional clause 'if they were to have done it' means the same as 'if they had done it'. 
That represents an unreal or counterfactual past condition: we know it did not happen.

Therefore it cannot be combined with a result clause such as 'I would give them a pass mark', because this represents a real future possibility.


----------



## sunyaer

wandle said:


> ...
> 
> (a) It may mean 'if it was their duty (or job) to do it'.
> _'If they were to have done it, they ought to have reported to the office by 9 o'clock'._
> In other words: If it was their job to do it, the first thing they should have done was report to the office by 9 o'clock - but in fact they did not report in.
> 
> ...



Does _'If they were to have done it_' in the above sentence imply that it was their job to do it? Or the speaker doesn't really know?


----------



## e2efour

I just find _If they were to have done it_ strange without a context. I also don't believe that it sounds like English.

I can only understand it to mean "if they were going to do it". We don't know whether they did it or not, although if they did do it, the speaker expects them to have reported to the office.


----------



## sunyaer

wandle said:


> (a) It may mean 'if it was their duty (or job) to do it'.
> _'If they were to have done it, they ought to have reported to the office by 9 o'clock'._
> ...
> (b) It may mean 'if it were the case that they had done it' ('if it were true that they had done it').
> _'If they were to have done it, I would have given them a pass mark.'_
> ...
> 
> In case (b), 'if they were to have done it' implies that they were not thought likely to do it, whereas 'if they had done it' is neutral as to likelihood.





e2efour said:


> I just find _If they were to have done it_ strange without a context. I also don't believe that it sounds like English.
> 
> I can only understand it to mean "if they were going to do it". We don't know whether they did it or not. although if they did do it, the speaker expects them to have reported to the office.



Agree with e2efour. I find that _If they were to, _which has the meaning of "if they were going to do it", can only refer to counterfactual future.


----------



## kalamazoo

This is confusing at best, so I would say that this structure is quite awkward and its meaning is not completely clear.  So I would not recommend using it.  The sentence needs editing for clarity, regardless of whether it is technically "correct" or not, and it would better to completely revise it.


----------



## wandle

sunyaer said:


> I find that _If they were to, _which has the meaning of "if they were going to do it", can only refer to counterfactual future.


Sorry, but there is no such thing as 'counterfactual future'. 'Counterfactual' means 'contrary to fact'. A fact can only be something that has actually happened. Whatever is future has not yet happened and is not factual. There cannot be anything contrary to the future. A future possiblity may be likely or unlikely, but never factual or counterfactual.

The phrase we are discussing here is _*not*_ _'if they were to_' on its own, but _'if they *were to have* done it'_.
This can have two meanings: (a) 'if it was their duty or job to do it' (open past conditional); (b) if they had done it (counterfactual past conditional).

To understand meaning (a), think of two teams, being assigned different jobs on Monday morning. 
Team Red are to design a widget-cracker (it is their job to design it). 
Team Blue are to gather the materials and build the widget-cracker (it is their job to build it). 
It must be complete before next Monday.

When next Monday comes, the widget-cracker has been built, but does not work. Each team blames the other for the problem. The dispute turns on whether a particular task was part of the designing function or the building function. If it was a design task, that means the Reds were to have done it (it was their job to do it). If it was a building task, then the Blues were to have done it (it was their job to do it).

The manager says, 'Well, if The Reds were to have done it, the fault lies with them; but if the Blues were to have done it, they must take responsibility. I shall examine the matter in detail and decide who is to blame'.

At this stage, it is an open question which team was to have done the task. Thus the manager's sentence 'If the Reds were to have done it, the fault lies with them' is an open past conditional. The clause 'if the Reds were to have done it' means the same as 'if it was the Reds' job to do it'.


----------



## sunyaer

wandle said:


> ...
> 
> (b) It may mean 'if it were the case that they had done it' ('if it were true that they had done it').
> _'If they were to have done it, I would have given them a pass mark.'_
> In other words: If they had done it, I would have given them a pass mark - but in fact they did not do it.
> 
> In case (b), 'if they were to have done it' implies that they were not thought likely to do it, whereas 'if they had done it' is neutral as to likelihood.





wandle said:


> The phrase we are discussing here is _*not*_ _'if they were to_' on its own, but _'if they *were to have* done it'_.
> This can have two meanings: (a) 'if it was their duty or job to do it' (open past conditional); (b) if they had done it (counterfactual past conditional).
> 
> To understand meaning (a), think of two teams, being assigned different jobs on Monday morning.
> ...



A context to understand (b)?


----------



## wandle

sunyaer said:


> A context to understand (b)?





wandle said:


> (b) It may mean 'if it were the case that they had done it' ('if it were true that they had done it').
> _'If they were to have done it, I would have given them a pass mark.'_
> In other words: If they had done it, I would have given them a pass mark - but in fact they did not do it.
> 
> In case (b), 'if they were to have done it' implies that they were not thought likely to do it, whereas 'if they had done it' is neutral as to likelihood.


For example, a teacher might say, 
_'Smith and Jones did about as well as I expected. I never thought they would complete six out of ten questions correctly, but of course if they were to have done that, I would have given them a pass mark'._


----------



## sunyaer

e2efour said:


> I just find _If they were to have done it_ strange without a context. I also don't believe that it sounds like English.
> 
> I can only understand it to mean "if they were going to do it". We don't know whether they did it or not, although if they did do it, the speaker expects them to have reported to the office.





kalamazoo said:


> This is confusing at best, so I would say that this structure is quite awkward and its meaning is not completely clear.  So I would not recommend using it.  The sentence needs editing for clarity, regardless of whether it is technically "correct" or not, and it would better to completely revise it.





sunyaer said:


> A context to understand (b)?





wandle said:


> For example, a teacher might say,
> _'Smith and Jones did about as well as I expected. I never thought they would complete six out of ten questions correctly, but of course if they were to have done that, I would have given them a pass mark'._



Could comments be made from e2efour and kalamazoo on wandle's above example?


----------



## e2efour

There is no need to write _if they were to have done that_ instead of _if they had done that_. I find this a clumsy way of emphasising the unliikelihood of them getting 6/10 questions correct.
If I wanted to say that it was rather unlikely, I would write something like _in the unlikely event of them getting 6/10._


----------



## kalamazoo

TO me, if you say "I never thought they would do something" then no new information about the likelihood is conveyed by saying 'if they were to have done that' instead of just 'if they had done that."  And by itself, the statement 'if they were to have done that' is not very clear and not really necessary.


----------



## sunyaer

wandle said:


> ..
> In case (b), 'if they were to have done it' implies that they were not thought likely to do it, whereas 'if they had done it' is neutral as to likelihood.





wandle said:


> For example, a teacher might say,
> _'Smith and Jones did about as well as I expected. I never thought they would complete six out of ten questions correctly, but of course if they were to have done that, I would have given them a pass mark'._



"if they were to have done it" doesn't come across to me as acquiring the sense of "to be thought likely to..", even with the implication of the preceeding sentence "_I never thought...". _


----------



## wandle

sunyaer said:


> "if they were to have done it" doesn't come across to me as acquiring the sense of "to be thought likely to..", even with the implication of the preceeding sentence "_I never thought...". _





wandle said:


> In case (b), 'if they were to have done it' implies that they were *not* thought likely to do it, whereas 'if they had done it' is neutral as to likelihood.


Here are a couple of examples from the web:

*Samsung Pays Apple $1 Billion in Nickels…Or Do They?*
_Well it turns out it’s all a hoax! Samsung never sent nickels to Apple. in fact, if they were to have done it, it would’ve taken waaay more than 30 trucks._

*The Ann Arbor Chronicle*
_So there might have been efficiencies if they were to have done it all at once. But quite frankly, he said, without those resources, there’s not the ability to move forward on a more grand project, either for design or construction._


----------



## e2efour

wandle said:


> *Samsung Pays Apple $1 Billion in Nickels…Or Do They?*
> _Well it turns out it’s all a hoax! Samsung never sent nickels to Apple. in fact, if they were to have done it, it would’ve taken waaay more than 30 trucks._
> 
> *The Ann Arbor Chronicle*
> _So there might have been efficiencies if they were to have done it all at once. But quite frankly, he said, without those resources, there’s not the ability to move forward on a more grand project, either for design or construction._



I find these examples completely alien. The natural construction is _if they had done it. _Even if it is possible to use a tortuous and confusing construction like _if they were to have done it_ (which I doubt, since it is not mentioned in any grammar book I know), I see no difference in meaning.


----------



## wandle

In expressing unreal or counterfactual conditions, the periphrasis 'were to' is a regular alternative to the past tense form.

For an unreal present conditon we may say either 'if I ruled the world' or 'if I were to rule the world'.
For an unreal past condition we may say either 'if Shakespeare had ruled the world' or 'if Shakespeare were to have ruled the world'.

The English Language Learners website gives a fuller explanation here (compare post 9).

A couple more examples:

9 Feb 2014 - If you were to have purchased an iPhone piece-by-piece in 1991, it would have cost you a total of $3.56 million.

I guarantee if you were to have done it, you would have had a great time.


----------



## a passerby

wandle said:


> In expressing unreal or counterfactual conditions, the periphrasis 'were to' is a regular alternative to the past tense form.
> 
> For an unreal present conditon we may say either 'if I ruled the world' or 'if I were to rule the world'.
> For an unreal past condition we may say either 'if Shakespeare had ruled the world' or 'if Shakespeare were to have ruled the world'.



I don't think that's true, and the site you cite doesn't really support that.

"_were to X_" is a valid grammatical construct -- but _If I were to rule the world_ means, essentially, _If I were going to rule the world_: it denotes a counterfactual future expectancy, a state of the world which is not true, and will likely not be true, and _in_ which X_ is not yet _true. E.g., _If I were to go to New York, I'd take a Yankee-English phrasebook with me_. It's simply the phrase _I am to rule the world_ (resp. _I am to go to New York_) in the irrealis: these are different from the phrases _I rule the world_ and _I'm going to New York_.

The distinction is admittedly a bit fuzzy with the present (especially since _I'm going_ carries an implication of the future anyway), but the original poster's use of the perfect infinitive throws it into sharp relief: _If they were to have done it_ cannot mean _If they had done it_, but rather something along the lines of _If they had been expecting to do it_ or _If they had been obliged to do it_. It is simply the phrase _They were to have done it_, in the (past plural, and thus unmarked) irrealis. (It could also be the present-tense phrase _They are to have done it_, but that's a bit difficult to find a reasonable context for.)

EDIT: I accept that in British English the distinction may have been lost, as your examples imply, but I do assert that it's present in American English. (Insofar as we have "I am to do" at all, anyway.)


----------



## wandle

a passerby said:


> I don't think that's true, and the site you cite doesn't really support that.


This extract from the English Language Learners page cited is indeed making the same point as my post 28:


> In your example, the author asks you to "suppose" not something which happened in the present, which would be expressed as "If you were to ask world leaders today", but something which happened in the past, a few hundred years ago. You have to 'backshift' the expression from present to past.
> 
> But you can't do that in the ordinary way, by using the ordinary past form of BE, were—because you've already used up that form in the present. The workaround in English for expressing a past irrealis is to employ the appropriate form of HAVE + the past participle of VERB: "If you were to have asked world leaders a few hundred years ago".





a passerby said:


> _If I were to rule the world_ means, essentially, _If I were going to rule the world_: it denotes a counterfactual future expectancy,



Here I must disagree on two points. First, there is no 'counterfactual future'. Nothing future can be contrary to fact, because the future has not happened yet. Only a present or past state of affairs can be a fact: consequently only a present or past possibility could be contrary to fact. For a future possibility the antithesis of likely or unlikely can apply, but not the antithesis of factual or counterfactual.

Secondly, the indicative counterpart of the clause 'if I were going to rule the world' is 'I am going to rule the world', not 'I am to rule the world'. The meaning of 'I am to rule the world' is well explained by the web page cited and by post 9, taken together. It means 'It is my job or role or destiny to rule the world', or 'I am supposed or expected to rule the world'.

I am not aware of any difference between UK and US usage here. Of the usage examples I have quoted, three are certainly American, and I suspect the other one (the iPhone tweet) also is.


----------



## a passerby

wandle said:


> This extract from the English Language Learners page cited is indeed making the same point as my post 28:



Conceded. I'm afraid I jumped on the present-tense discussion, and didn't see that he explicitly described the irrealis as replacing the futurity.



wandle said:


> Here I must disagree on two points. First, there is no 'counterfactual future'. Nothing future can be contrary to fact, because the future has not happened yet. Only a present or past state of affairs can be a fact: consequently only a present or past possibility could be contrary to fact. For a future possibility the antithesis of likely or unlikely can apply, but not the antithesis of factual or counterfactual.



That's a philosophical claim, not a linguistic one; I disagree with it completely, but this isn't the place to get into that. 

Insofar as there _is_ a linguistic component to it: there are many languages that do mark statements about the future as necessarily irrealis, but English is not one of them. It _does_ mark counterfactual statements which have a semantically-future temporal referent: consider and contrast the phrases _if the sun isn't going to rise tomorrow_ and _if the sun weren't going to rise tomorrow_. That's admittedly a periphrastic construction to express the future using a finite verb's present tense, but the latter clearly expresses a counterfactual sentiment, where the former does not.



wandle said:


> Secondly, the indicative counterpart of the clause 'if I were going to rule the world' is 'I am going to rule the world', not 'I am to rule the world'. The meaning of 'I am to rule the world' is well explained by the web page cited and by post 9, taken together. It means 'It is my job or role or destiny to rule the world', or 'I am supposed or expected to rule the world'.



I don't claim that "I am to rule the world" and "I am going to rule the world" are identical in meaning; just that they're far closer than "I am to rule the world" (and hence, "If I were to rule the world") and "I rule the world" (and hence, "If I ruled the world") are. Specifically, both of the former describe an (expected) future state, rather than a current one.



wandle said:


> I am not aware of any difference between UK and US usage here. Of the usage examples I have quoted, three are certainly American, and I suspect the other one (the iPhone tweet) also is.



I didn't see your citations in #26, only the very British examples in #9. I agree that they significantly weaken my case; while I can cheerfully view the blogger and the junk news site as just folks tryin' an' failin' ta talk all high-falutin'-like, the Ann Arbor Chronicle citation almost certainly _isn't._ It's just barely possible for me to see it as prospective perfect, but it is quite a stretch.

I believe the "BE to VERB" construction -- whether past, present, indicative, or subjunctive -- is generally less common over here. I can't verify or refute that with Google, though; I get too many false positives to wade through, and I'll probably accept anyone else's data on the matter.

I _can_ at least say with some certainty that "if ~ were to have" is two and a half to three _orders of magnitude_ less common than "if ~ had" (side of the pond not controlled for). Google likes to claim millions for everything, at least for me (at least until I click through to the last page (even when that's page 2)); but on gibiru.com I get 


"if they were to have done it": 6 results
"if they had done it": 10,600 results
"if the court were to have ruled": 3 results
"if the court had ruled": 1,880 results
with similar results on startpage.com. (Sorry, no hits anywhere for Shakespeare counterfactually ruling anything.)

Alas, several of the "if the court were to have ruled" sites (Google provides a few more hits: 12 or so) are both a) reasonably respectable sources, and b) not interpretable as prospective at all. I still feel that the construction is horribly awkward, and it's clearly generally dispreferred, but at this point *I am forced to concede* (at the very least) that for the majority of its users, educated or otherwise, it does not express any futurity whatsoever, nor do they expect it to be so interpreted.


----------



## kalamazoo

I think this is a confusing area because 'were to have done' is potentially interpretable in two (probably more) different ways.  I associate it with the construction "I am to give the keynote speech" (meaning, I am scheduled to or supposed to or assigned to do something) so "if they were to have done x" could mean either 'if they had been supposed to do x' or 'if they had done x'.  I think part of the problem is the word 'done' which is fairly vague.  Thus I think context is necessary to clarify some of these sentences.  It's pretty obvious that you probably didn't purchase an iPhone piece by piece in 1991.  Since there is always (I think) an alternative and less awkward way to construct these sentences just using 'had' that might generally be preferable.


----------



## sunyaer

kalamazoo said:


> ...
> 
> I associate it with the construction "I am to give the keynote speech" (meaning, I am scheduled to or supposed to or assigned to do something) so "if they were to have done x" could mean either 'if they had been supposed to do x' or 'if they had done x'.  I think part of the problem is the word 'done' which is fairly vague.  ...



Could you elaborate a bit more on "part of the problem is the word 'done' which is fairly vague"? How come the problem arises from the word "done"?



kalamazoo said:


> ...
> 
> It's pretty obvious that you probably didn't purchase an iPhone piece by piece in 1991.
> 
> ...



 What does it mean in relation to the topic here? Never heard you could buy an iPhone in 1991.


----------



## kalamazoo

The iPhone example refers to the quote given in post#28.  It's just an example of this usage.

"Done" could refer to any activity so it's inherently vague.  If you say "if they were to have performed their assigned task adequately" then it's clear that this was something they were supposed to do. If you say "If they were to have bought the component parts of an iPhone in 1991" then it's fairly obvious that this was not your assigned task but rather refers to an unlikely past event.


----------



## wandle

a passerby said:


> That's a philosophical claim, not a linguistic one; I disagree with it completely, but this isn't the place to get into that.


 It is not obvious that 'philosophical' and 'linguistic' can be distinguished here. Language is a part of our engagement with reality. However, my intention was no more than the pedagogical aim of providing a common-sense rationale for the traditional terminology of conditionals, so as to help a learner to remember that the term 'counterfactual' applies to present and past conditions only. Compare, for example:

Using English
_As events in the future have not happened yet, we cannot refer in the IF-clause to a counterfactual future action or state. However infinitesimal the possibility, it exists, and therefore can be presented only as a hypothetical, not as a counterfactual action or state._


a passerby said:


> consider and contrast the phrases _if the sun isn't going to rise tomorrow_ and _if the sun weren't going to rise tomorrow_. That's admittedly a periphrastic construction to express the future using a finite verb's present tense, but the latter clearly expresses a counterfactual sentiment, where the former does not.


I disagree: for the reasons given, we need to describe the latter as a hypothetical, unlikely or remote condition: not a counterfactual one. (Granted, we think of the sun's rising tomorrow - in other words, the continuance of the observed regularity of the solar system and the wider universe - as a given fact, but that is really no more than an expectation: even though it is as strong an expectation as any we can derive from experience, it is still not a logical certainty.)


a passerby said:


> I didn't see your citations in #26, only the very British examples in #9.


In post 9, I was responding to post 8:


sunyaer said:


> Can we say _'If they were to have done it, I would have given them a pass mark'?
> _How is it different than "_'If they had done it, I would have given them a pass mark'_?


That is apparently a Korean example: and none the worse for that. It is just as valid as the American examples I gave in posts 26 and 28.

It seems to me a perfectly standard usage to introduce the phrase 'were to' in order to convey a greater sense of remoteness or unlikelihood in a counterfactual past conditional: when that is done, the formula 'if it had been' becomes 'if it were to have been': and likewise for comparable expressions.


a passerby said:


> I can at least say with some certainty that "if ~ were to have" is two and a half to three orders of magnitude less common than "if ~ had"


 What if it is? The past simple ('ran') is probably far more frequent than the past perfect ('had run'). That does not make the past perfect incorrect, or less good. It is just different.

There is no lack of good international examples of the usage 'were to have', expressing a sense of greater unlikelihood in a past counterfactual. 

Truth and History
 By Murray G. Murphey
Murray G. Murphey is Professor Emeritus of American Civilization at the University of Pennsylvania. 

_Dummett states his criterion for the truth of statements about unobserved events, as "if someone were to have been at hand at the relevant time, he could have observed an event of that kind"._

Darwin the Writer
 By George Levine
OUP New York
George Levine is the Kenneth Burke Professor of English at Rutgers University 

_He might even have been alarmed if he were to have found himself in this book ... juxtaposed to Dickens and George Eliot instead of to Cuvier, say, or Lyell._

Compendium of Theology By Thomas Aquinas
Riachard J Regan 
OUP USA 
Riachard J Regan, Rev. Professor of Theology Emeritus, Fordham University, USA

_For, if he were to have returned to life immediately after death, the truth of his death would not have been confirmed_.


----------



## sunyaer

wandle said:


> ...
> 
> (b) It may mean 'if it were the case that they had done it' ('if it were true that they had done it').
> _'If they were to have done it, I would have given them a pass mark.'_
> In other words: If they had done it, I would have given them a pass mark - but in fact they did not do it.
> 
> In case (b), 'if they were to have done it' implies that they were not thought likely to do it, whereas 'if they had done it' is neutral as to likelihood.





kalamazoo said:


> ...
> 
> If you say "If they were to have bought the component parts of an iPhone in 1991" then it's fairly obvious that this was not your assigned task but rather refers to an unlikely past event.



This sentence should fall in case (b) as wandle points out, does it implies they were not *thought *likely to buy the component parts of an iPhone in 1991? (I don't feel the meaning of being thought in the sentence.)


----------



## wandle

In sentence (b), the speaker is the teacher. The difference between _'If they were to have done it, I would have given them a pass mark'_ and _'If they had done it, I would have given them a pass mark'_ is that, by saying 'if they were to have done it', the teacher shows that he thought it unlikely; whereas 'if they had done it' is neutral as to likelihood.

In the sentence _'If you were to have purchased an iPhone piece-by-piece in 1991, it would have cost you a total of $3.56 million'_ the speaker is referring to a case which was not really possible in practice, since the iPhone had not been produced at that time. By saying 'if you were to have', the speaker is showing his sense that the event was extremely unlikely. 

If instead of that the speaker had said _'If you had bought the component parts of an iPhone in 1991'_, then the words 'if you had' (being neutral as to likelihood) would have implied that such a possibility had existed in practical terms.


----------



## sunyaer

wandle said:


> ...
> 
> (b) It may mean 'if it were the case that they had done it' ('if it were true that they had done it').
> _'If they were to have done it, I would have given them a pass mark.'_
> In other words: If they had done it, I would have given them a pass mark - but in fact they did not do it.
> 
> In case (b), 'if they were to have done it' implies that they were not thought likely to do it, whereas 'if they had done it' is neutral as to likelihood.





wandle said:


> ...
> 
> whereas 'if they had done it' is neutral as to likelihood.
> 
> ...
> 
> .... By saying 'if you were to have', the speaker is showing his sense that the event was extremely unlikely.
> 
> ...



But if 'if you were to have' refers to counterfactual past, how could the speaker's sense regarding the unlikelihood of the event be added on to the sentence? 

There is no likelihood existing when making a statement of the counterfactual past, which is a past factual. 

Does it make sense to make a statement like "it's a counterfactual past event, and I also think it was extremely unlikely? 

Or should we understand it as "it's a counterfactual past event, and in my opinion, it was extremely unlikely so that it didn't happen."


----------



## wandle

We need to distinguish between counterfactual on the one hand and unlikely (improbable, remote) on the other.
These are distinct concepts which do not overlap; they are neither equivalent nor contradictory to one another.

In sentence (b), the alternative forms 'if they had done it' and 'if they were to have done it' both equally express that the case is contrary to fact. This information (that the case is counterfactual) is (1) factual knowledge and (2) the result of hindsight.

The form 'if they had done it' is neutral as to likelihood: it merely gives expression to the case which was ruled out by the event, without saying whether it was thought likely or not.

The form 'if they were to have done it' also gives expression to the case which was ruled out by the event, and in addition expresses the speaker's opinion that the case was unlikely. This opinion of the speaker's (that the case was unlikely) is (1) not factual knowledge (it is opinion or judgement) and (2) not the result of hindsight (it is the result of the speaker's estimation of probability based on prior or general expectation).

It is perfectly possible to say that we had thought an event was very likely but, contrary to our expectation, it did not happen.
Equally, we can perfectly well say that we had thought an event was very unlikely and, just as we had expected, it did not happen.

We can also say after an event has happened that it was highly unlikely and that it remains, for the future, highly unlikely to happen. 
This would be a reasonable thing to say about winning a lottery jackpot or observing some highly improbable natural phenomenon.


----------



## sunyaer

kalamazoo said:


> ...
> 
> If you say "If they were to have bought the component parts of an iPhone in 1991" then it's fairly obvious that this was not your assigned task but rather refers to an unlikely past event.





wandle said:


> ...
> 
> 
> The form 'if they were to have done it' also gives expression to the case which was ruled out by the event, and in addition expresses the speaker's opinion that the case was unlikely. This opinion of the speaker's (that the case was unlikely) is (1) not factual knowledge (it is opinion or judgement) and (2) not the result of hindsight (it is the result of the speaker's estimation of probability based on prior or general expectation).
> 
> ...
> 
> Equally, we can perfectly well say that we had thought an event was very unlikely and, just as we had expected, it did not happen.
> ...



The question now is when this thinking of an event being unlikely occurs, at the time of the speaker saying "If they were to have bought the component parts..." or before / at the time that the purchase occurred?


----------



## wandle

sunyaer said:


> The question now is when this thinking of an event being unlikely occurs, at the time of the speaker saying "If they were to have bought the component parts..." or before / at the time that the purchase occurred?





wandle said:


> In the sentence _'If you were to have purchased an iPhone piece-by-piece in 1991, it would have cost you a total of $3.56 million' _the speaker is referring to a case which was not really possible in practice, since the iPhone had not been produced at that time. By saying 'if you were to have', the speaker is showing his sense that the event was extremely unlikely.


In other words, the person who tweeted this sentence in 2014 is using the expression 'if you were to have' deliberately to show that he thinks that that event would have been extremely unlikely back then. I imagine the materials would have been expensive and difficult to source, and it would probably have been very difficult and costly to have the components engineered to the right specification and minimised to the required size (even if you had been able to conceptualise the product itself as a whole).

The speaker is expressing his view now in 2014 that performing the whole procedure would have been extremely unlikely then in 1991.


wandle said:


> If instead of that the speaker had said _'If you had bought the component parts of an iPhone in 1991'_, then the words 'if you had' (being neutral as to likelihood) would have implied that such a possibility had existed in practical terms.


----------



## noexcuse_hope

it's been about 4.5 years since this thread was first created. It is still helping me understanding the usage of "If + were to have done vs had done". A big thank to Wandle and all the contributors.

I have been reading up on the grammar topic future seen from the past, if I do away with the "If", does it still carry the speakers expectation? Example below:

The boat, which was to have taken them to the island, failed to arrive.
There was to have been a ban on smoking indoors nationwide, but restaurant owners have forced the council to reconsider.
We were to have seen each other that day, but i had to call and cancel.

1. I feel like people use supposed to in these cases more often. Is it common to use this structure without If?
2. I feel like I can also use was/were to to substitute was/were to have in these examples above, am i correct?

Thanks so much in advance for your help!

Chris


----------



## kalamazoo

Wow, this is quite a topic!  I think all three sentences are okay and grammatically correct, to me at least.  However, they seem pretty formal.  This is how I would rewrite them to seem a little more natural to me.

1.  The boat that was supposed to take them to the island failed to arrive.
2.  There was supposed to be a ban....
3.  We were supposed to see each other...

Another construction would be
4.  The boat that was going to take them to the island failed to arrive,
5.  There was going to be a ban, but
6.  We were going to see each other

Both of these convey the idea of a pre-arranged event of some kind. 1-2-3 convey slightly more the idea of some sort of obligation, while 4-6 don't really have that flavor.  To me, either would be okay, in speech or in writing.  Others may differ.  And I am an AmE speaker, so maybe BrE would be different.


----------



## e2efour

I think that for sentences 4-6 you are thinking of _The boat that was to take them, There was to be a ban, We were to see each other.
_
I don't see any difference between these sentences and _The boat that was to have taken them_ etc.


----------



## kalamazoo

e2efour said:


> I think that for sentences 4-6 you are thinking of _The boat that was to take them, There was to be a ban, We were to see each other.
> _
> I don't see any difference between these sentences and _The boat that was to have taken them_ etc.



I think this is a slight usage difference between AmE and BrE.  I would understand "the boat that was to take them" with no problem, but it seems to me like something I would never say.


----------

