# Subjunctive: If I would have known ...?



## friedfysh

Hello everyone... I have heard lots of my American and Canadian friends using a structure that sounds very strange and wrong to me -
"If I would have known, I wouldn't have done it."
"If I would have gone, I would have seen you." etc
I (British) would always say
"If I had known, i wouldn't have gone."
"If I had gone, I would have seen you."
I am by no means an authority on the English language so what I want to ask is whether or not the first (American) examples are actually grammatically correct/archaic or if they are just plain bad English?


----------



## Dimcl

friedfysh said:


> Hello everyone... I have heard lots of my American and Canadian friends using a structure that sounds very strange and wrong to me -
> "If I would have known, I wouldn't have done it."
> "If I would have gone, I would have seen you." etc
> I (British) would always say
> "If I had known, i wouldn't have gone."
> "If I had gone, I would have seen you."
> I am by no means an authority on the English language so what I want to ask is whether or not the first (American) examples are actually grammatically correct/archaic or if they are just plain bad English?


 
My opinion?  These examples are just plain wrong and your language is correct.


----------



## Harry Batt

It just happens that I have my Amderican  bad English Harper's Collins handbook handy and it has the answer. It refuses to agree with every English speaker from Clitheroe to Oxford. On page 254 Eg. Rafael would have gone to the store , but his car was stolen. A _would have +_ past participle represents actions or events that were not completed in the past because of some condition. It, thus, implies that I in Minneapolis and if I visit Kentucky, can say, "I would have gone to the store, but my car was stolen." And when I go to visit Tom Hardy's gravesite in Dorset I will be able to say, "I had plans to go the store, my car was stolen." Wait a minute, that's not right." The answer is, "Take the bus."


----------



## friedfysh

Also Re Harry Batt...Both "I had plans to go to the store, but my car was stolen" and "I would have gone to the store (or shop at least) but my car was stolen" sound fine to me, at least I'd say both.


----------



## Brioche

Harry Batt said:


> It just happens that I have my Amderican  bad English Harper's Collins handbook handy and it has the answer. It refuses to agree with every English speaker from Clitheroe to Oxford. On page 254 Eg. Rafael would have gone to the store , but his car was stolen. A _would have +_ past participle represents actions or events that were not completed in the past because of some condition. It, thus, implies that I in Minneapolis and if I visit Kentucky, can say, "I would have gone to the store, but my car was stolen." And when I go to visit Tom Hardy's gravesite in Dorset I will be able to say, "I had plans to go the store, my car was stolen." Wait a minute, that's not right." The answer is, "Take the bus."



You're missing the point.

In German, for example, the same tense of the verb is used in the _main clause_ and the _subordinate clause_ in conditional sentences.

It's completely correct German to say something like _If I *would *have known, I *would* not have done it._

This sort of construction is very common in American English, but not in BE.
BE favours "would" only in the main clause.

I often wonder whether it is the influence of Yiddish/German on AE.


----------



## panjandrum

<< Mod comment.
Is there some reason for this question not being taken seriously?
If so, please explain in the usual manner to the moderators.
panj>>

This usage, "If I would have ....",  is not limited to friedfysh's AE/CE-speaking friends.

As friedfysh points out, Harry's "I would have gone to the store, but my car was stolen," sounds entirely normal.  It is not the structure that friedfysh is asking about.


----------



## panjandrum

It's surprising that such confusion can arise.
friedfysh's examples, and Brioche's post #5, are about:

_If I *would *have XXXX, I *would* have YYYY._
_If I *would *have XXXX, I *would* not have YYYY.

_Specifically, the question is about the use of "If I would have XXXX, ..."

I hear this frequently, and believe it to be incorrect.
It has not occurred to me to ask if there is a logical, grammatical or historical background to it.
Brioche suggests a possible background explanation.


----------



## panjandrum

Here is a possibly-related thread.
The topic includes "I had have done" and variants.
*I do...I have done...I had done... I had have done*

Another one, specifically talking about "If I would have ..."
* 	... had have been able...*


----------



## friedfysh

All I really want to know is whether or not it is technically correct to say "If I would have XXX," instead of "If I had XXX," the second part is always "I would have XXX." It seems that some people have understood my question and others no. Thanks to panjandrum for helping me to clarify this.


----------



## elroy

Hi Friedfysh,

Like Panjandrum, I consider it incorrect - prescriptively speaking, of course.  That is, it's used in spoken American English, but I would blue-pencil it in an essay.


----------



## liliput

It sounds like very bad English to me.
The company I work with (owned and run by an AE speaker) produces an excellent book about conditionals and almost every page features something similar to the following:
DON'T FORGET THE GOLDEN RULE: NEVER USE _WOULD_ IN THE _IF_ CLAUSE.


----------



## Sr. Moose

elroy said:


> Hi Friedfysh,
> 
> Like Panjandrum, I consider it incorrect - prescriptively speaking, of course.  That is, *it's used in spoken American English*, but I would blue-pencil it in an essay.


No, it's not used in American English, but judging from this thread, it appears to pop up quite frequently in the Uk, Australia, Checkoslovakia, and Jerusalem.


----------



## domangelo

The sentence structure you are talking about is complex, mixing conditional and subjunctive in the past tense. It is completely understandable that people get confused, and that you often hear incorrect constructions. I don't think its a matter of North America versus Britain, it's more a matter of imprecise grammar among native speakers.


----------



## elroy

Sr. Moose said:


> No, it's not used in American English, [...]


 Yes, it is. I know Americans who use it. Perhaps this is a particular mistake that you don't happen to have come across. 


> but judging from this thread, it appears to pop up quite frequently in the U*K*, Australia, C*z*ec*h*oslovakia, and Jerusalem.


 Jerusalem? I don't recall talking about the usage of this structure in Jerusalem.

And Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore.


----------



## liliput

elroy said:


> Yes, it is. I know Americans who use it. Perhaps this is a particular mistake that you don't happen to have come across.
> Jerusalem? I don't recall talking about the usage of this structure in Jerusalem.
> 
> And C*z*echoslovakia doesn't exist anymore.


----------



## friedfysh

Ok, so whilst I can assure you all that it is used by some Americans and Canadians (at least in California, Texas and Toronto) we can all agree that it is not correct. End of topic.


----------



## Harry Batt

Zut Alors! I just mentioned to my wife what's going on in the forum. She is from the East. I am Midwestern. I mentioned that I have always said "If I would have . . ." and she snapped that it is a Midwestern thing. How are we going to continue to get along? Is wasn't so bad when she said Minnehaha Creek and I said crick. I'm afraid Friedfish that we will have to add Long Island to the "hads."


----------



## friedfysh

I now have a friend from Michigan and I have yet to hear her use this construction correctly...grates my ears every time.
As I side note, here's an interesting variation for you all...
"If they hadn't been so ugly, I might have been tempted."
No "woulds" in sight.


----------



## Outsider

By coincidence, there's a recent thread in the forum about "Would" in "if"-clauses.


----------



## Loob

Hi Outsider!

I think what we're focusing on here is where/whether it is correct to say "If I'd have pp {done/wanted/killed} etc"...

Standard English will, I think, always point to "If I had {done/wanted/killed} etc ....

Loob


----------



## Outsider

I see, thanks.


----------



## limelight24

Well Harry Batt, as a Midwesterner myself (although a latecomer to this forum) I can agree that the conditional "would" is used in both the main clause and the secondary clause by many people I know. While I appreciate friedfysh's concern for presciptivism, the general consensus in linguistics (as far as I know) is to find patterns of speech _as they are used_ in everyday situations. And as a reader of these forums, I also believe that is one of the major concerns here. So, albeit prescriptively incorrect, I would say, "I would have xxx if I would've yyy."


----------



## Forero

The problem I have with people using "if he would have" where they mean "if he had" is that the two phrases have different meanings to me.  "If he would have" assumes he wouldn't; "if he had" assumes only that he didn't.

If George had come, then we could have played bridge. (George didn't come, so we couldn't play bridge.)

If George would come, then we could all go together. (George won't come, so we'll have to go alone.)

If George would have come, we wouldn't have had to call Jim. (George wouldn't come, so we had to call Jim.)


----------



## domangelo

limelight24 said:


> Well Harry Batt, as a Midwesterner myself (although a latecomer to this forum) I can agree that the conditional "would" is used in both the main clause and the secondary clause by many people I know. While I appreciate friedfysh's concern for presciptivism, the general consensus in linguistics (as far as I know) is to find patterns of speech _as they are used_ in everyday situations. And as a reader of these forums, I also believe that is one of the major concerns here. So, albeit prescriptively incorrect, I would say, "I would have xxx if I would've yyy."



It is interesting that nearly all of the fervent defenders of the conditional + conditional form are from the Midwestern US. As an Easterner, this grates on my ears as well. As for the general consensus among linguists, I think we will have a long wait to see what that is, exactly. But I believe that we have to strike a balance between prescription and description. The creative forces of the language should not be limited by prescription, but the anarchic forces which make our grammar and usage unfocused and ambiguous should be controlled. I think that this use of conditional + conditional should be avoided. We have the subjunctive, this is one of the few effective places to use it. I see no reason to accept every non-standard usage, some (like this one) are simply clumsy and unnecessarily confusing.


----------



## ewie

limelight24 said:


> Well Harry Batt, as a Midwesterner myself (although a latecomer to this forum) I can agree that the conditional "would" is used in both the main clause and the secondary clause by many people I know. While I appreciate friedfysh's concern for presciptivism, the general consensus in linguistics (as far as I know) is to find patterns of speech _as they are used_ in everyday situations. And as a reader of these forums, I also believe that is one of the major concerns here***. So, albeit prescriptively incorrect, I would say, "I would have xxx if I would've yyy."


 
*Hello, Limelight24, and on behalf of us all Welcome to the English Only Forum*

I've heard the construction used a trillion times in AE and often in BE too (without anyone falling down dead as a result).

I would add to your welcome comments the following: English is a _living language, _spoken by countless millions of people; the written language is an adjunct to the spoken one; both 'versions' evolve over time: there is nothing we can do to change this.

While I do NOT advocate a totally 'liberal' approach to usage ("Say/Write whatever you like wherever you like"), I would stress that English is what *we *do with it, not what others would *like *us to do with it, and remind forum users that things which 16/17/18/19th-century prescriptive grammarians decried as 'barbarisms' are now 'standard English': who knows but maybe one day _would have ... would have_ will be the standard usage ~ what a gang of fools we'll look _then_!

*[I prefer to think of _forum _in its base sense: a public place (where people gather and _discuss_ or _debate_), rather than in its later sense of 'place where people gather to lay down the law'.]

End of rant.


----------



## Ynez

A big grammar book, which is intended for advanced learners of English:

Modal verbs (most typically _will_ or _would_) may occur in conditional clauses if they have a meaning of willingness or prediction, or where it is important to mark politeness:

_If you would have allowed them more time, I still think they would have done better._
(if you had been willing to allow them more time)

R. Carter & M. McCarthy, 2006. _Cambridge Grammar of English_- A Comprehensive Guide (Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage). Cambridge University Press.


A grammar book especially intended for foreign learners:

And we do not normally use would in the if-clause.
	(_NOT If you would have taken a taxi, you would have got here in time._)

NOTE
You may occasionally hear a form such as _would have taken_ (OR _had have taken_) in an if-clause in informal speech. But many people regard it as incorrect, and it is not acceptable in writing, so you should avoid it.

J. Eastwood, 2005. _Oxford Learner's Grammar_ (Grammar Finder). Oxford University Press.


Some grammar books just don't say anything about this type of use, they are up in the abstract world.


----------



## Gwan

I wouldn't say "If I would have known" (sounds wrong to me too) but would usually say "If I'd have known..." where I don't really know if the " 'd " is representing 'would' or 'had'.


----------



## Ynez

To be correct, the _'d _is representing _would_. 

If it's representing _had_, that's a really bad mistake, at least not following basic grammar laws.


----------



## ablativ

Ynez said:


> To be correct, the _'d _is representing _would_.
> 
> If it's representing _had_, that's a really bad mistake, at least not following basic grammar laws.


 
Isn't it the other way round?


----------



## TrentinaNE

It should be "If I'd known..." = "If I had known..."  Neither _would_ nor _have_ is necessary or correct in this construction.  Bur following the "living language" discussion above, "If I'd have known..." is probably used to contract "If I would have known..."  (Raised in the midwest, but this grates on my ears, too!)

Elisabetta


----------



## Ynez

ablativ said:


> Isn't it the other way round?



_would have been_ is conditional perfect

it's not supposed to be used here, but it's an existing verb form


_had have_ doesn't exist, it is nothing


Do you understand what I mean?


----------



## Loob

I do understand what you mean, Ynez.

But the non-standard construction "if I'd have done X" is primarily used in speech; and I suspect that for many people who use the construction, the sound we're writing "have" is just a particle, like the 'of' that's often heard after 'off'. 

If I'm right, the "I'd" in the construction could just as easily represent "I had" as "I would".

I remember as a child arguing fiercely with my mother that it was correct to write "I would of done that" because the third word sounded nothing like 'have'...

Loob


----------



## Ynez

It's another example of typical mistakes native speakers may make, and those who learnt the language the hard way won't. We have them in Spanish too


----------



## wol

Just to muddy things up a bit more, the sentence *If you would have peace, prepare for war* is good syntax (except that I left the period off.) 

"If I'd've gone there, I'd've been swept up in the stampede." is unquestionably bad grammar, and I'll bet I've used it times without number. I blush to admit this.

The "Living Language" argument is always with us, but we have to rage against the dying of the light as long, and as loudly, as possible, to help language perform its function as a means of _communication_, as opposed to becoming merely a vehicle for self-expression.

There's a difference.


----------



## ewie

Hello Wol. My counter-argument here would be that since
_If I would have known_
and even
_If I had have known_
are so widespread and frequent, and their meaning so unambiguous (to native speakers, at least), that they might be regarded as legitimate alternative ways of communicating the idea of ... etc. etc.


----------



## wol

Hi ewie, My counter-counter-argument would be that if you had written "If I had have known..." and actually _meant_ it, I would have had to have red-hot icepicks thrust deep into both my eyes. Communication would have to have suffered... 

I confess (with profound joy) that I've never (yet) encountered "if I had have known" in real life. It sounds like a back-formation from "if I'd have known," which burns my fingers to type.


----------



## ewie

Don't you mean _communication would have had to have suffered_? (Sorry, just yankin' yer chain, now)


----------



## Forero

ewie said:


> Hello Wol. My counter-argument here would be that since
> _If I would have known_
> and even
> _If I had have known_
> are so widespread and frequent, and their meaning so unambiguous (to native speakers, at least), that they might be regarded as legitimate alternative ways of communicating the idea of ... etc. etc.


Perhaps we do need a new subjunctive to replace the old one that sounds too much like an indicative, but a "would have" that means "had" as well as what "would have" already means (at least to this native speaker) _is_ ambiguous and can be confusing.


----------



## oxumare

friedfysh said:


> All I really want to know is whether or not it is technically correct to say "If I would have XXX," instead of "If I had XXX," the second part is always "I would have XXX." It seems that some people have understood my question and others no. Thanks to panjandrum for helping me to clarify this.



"If I would have known, I wouldn't have..."

This structure is incorrect, though I hear it more and more frequently in the US.  The sentence should be "If I had known, I wouldn't have..."


----------



## Loob

Hello, oxumare!

I'd have sworn that I didn't use the _(also, to me, incorrect) _construction "If I'd have known, I wouldn't have..."

But a fellow-forero spotted me doing so...

The contrast between what we say and what we think we say is sometimes fascinating.

Welcome to the forums


----------



## JulianStuart

oxumare said:


> "If I would have known, I wouldn't have..."
> 
> This structure is incorrect, though I hear it more and more frequently in the US.  The sentence should be "If I had known, I wouldn't have..."



Welcome to the forum!

Having moved to the US from the UK a while ago this grated immediately, but I would say, from 30 years' worth of hearing it widely used, that in AE this form is so common that it is now no longer incorrect (Remember the maxim on usage : When enough of us/them are wrong, we're/they're right  )  I just live with the conclusion that AE and BE have developed different subjunctive forms (or acceptable variants), in addition to the other differences that distinguish the two...


----------



## Sedulia

I have often heard American speakers, especially in West Virginia where I went to high school, say "If I would have gone" to mean "If I had gone," etc. To me it still sounds uneducated.


----------



## Brioche

JulianStuart said:


> Welcome to the forum!
> 
> Having moved to the US from the UK a while ago this grated immediately, but I would say, from 30 years' worth of hearing it widely used, that in AE this form is so common that it is now no longer incorrect (Remember the maxim on usage : When enough of us/them are wrong, we're/they're right  )  I just live with the conclusion that AE and BE have developed different subjunctive forms (or acceptable variants), in addition to the other differences that distinguish the two...



How long before "_If they would of went_" becomes "right"?


----------



## JulianStuart

Perhaps the reason I think it's so widespread is the similar "I wish I would have XXX... "  Do I condone the adoption by the majority of an "error" being sufficient to make it "right"?  No, but that's how languages evolve.

As to : How long before "_If they would of went_" becomes "right"? ", your guess would be as good as mine!  (But longer than the "rightness" of color because of the three successive _errors_ in your construction.  Changes like that generally become dominant one at a time, I would expect).

I do recall hearing, before I left the UK, on a bus just outside Buckingham : "I wouldn't 've went, even if I had've been asked", so you know it's started


----------



## Louisg

friedfysh said:


> Hello everyone... I have heard lots of my American and Canadian friends using a structure that sounds very strange and wrong to me -
> "If I would have known, I wouldn't have done it."
> "If I would have gone, I would have seen you." etc
> I (British) would always say
> "If I had known, i wouldn't have gone."
> "If I had gone, I would have seen you."
> I am by no means an authority on the English language so what I want to ask is whether or not the first (American) examples are actually grammatically correct/archaic or if they are just plain bad English?



I'm from the UK and although it doesn't sound correct to me I must say I've heard "IF I'D'VE KNOWN" loads of times IN Britain by UK citizens (not immigrants). Conclusion: bad English is spoken on both sides of the Atlantic I'm afraid.


----------



## e2efour

I have tried to find examples of this phrase (still regarded as non-standard) in recent grammar books, but without success. One can find a number of book examples at Google Llibres.
It would be worth analysing the entries to see what proportion of them occur outside AE.

In the book _Full Potential GMAT* Sentence Correction Intensive_ (2015), by Sapir and van Hoek, we read the following.

'Many speakers use "would have" to set up the condition, as in "_If I would have_ known what was going on, I would have acted differently." This is becoming common usage in many parts of the U.S., but it is still non-standard and is considered  wrong on the GMAT.'

*The GMAT Exam is the Graduate Management Assessment Test, administered by the Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC), is aimed at aspiring MBA candidates.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:
'In spoken English there is a growing tendency to use _would have_ in place of the subjunctive in contrary-to-fact clauses, as in _If she would have only listened to me, this would have never happened._ But in our 1995 survey, only 14 percent of the Usage Panel accepted this sentence.'


----------



## MedaBeda

ewie said:


> *Hello, Limelight24, and on behalf of us all Welcome to the English Only Forum*
> 
> I've heard the construction used a trillion times in AE and often in BE too (without anyone falling down dead as a result).
> 
> I would add to your welcome comments the following: English is a _living language, _spoken by countless millions of people; the written language is an adjunct to the spoken one; both 'versions' evolve over time: there is nothing we can do to change this.
> 
> While I do NOT advocate a totally 'liberal' approach to usage ("Say/Write whatever you like wherever you like"), I would stress that English is what *we *do with it, not what others would *like *us to do with it, and remind forum users that things which 16/17/18/19th-century prescriptive grammarians decried as 'barbarisms' are now 'standard English': who knows but maybe one day _would have ... would have_ will be the standard usage ~ what a gang of fools we'll look _then_!
> 
> *[I prefer to think of _forum _in its base sense: a public place (where people gather and _discuss_ or _debate_), rather than in its later sense of 'place where people gather to lay down the law'.]
> 
> End of rant.



Love this post - I completely agree - Thank you ewie


----------



## velisarius

A "forum for debate" is all very nice, and the debating and learning about hitherto unknown usages is what I most enjoy here too, but very many of our members are students with a pressing need to pass exams, or people with jobs that require them to write and speak what is generally accepted as "good English".  For all those members, and they probably make up the majority here, the purely descriptive approach isn't all that helpful.


----------



## MedaBeda

I cannot disagree more, it is helpful. You just have to say what the right grammar usage is and what is colloquial. Tell the students - dont use the colloquial expressions in your tests or when you write something formal - and that is it - it is really that simple.
I dont understand why these colloquial expressions have to be put to some sort of "box with vulgar grammar". I do appreciate when I find out the colloquial usages on some forums because a lot of grammar books dont mention these and I am then perplexed how come that natives use it . Yes, this should be one of the strengths of these forums - the posibility for students to find something that wasnt put in their books. If you make from this one of the weaknesses, surprise surprise - but there is sort of nothing to discuss. So the whole thing is the other way round - the non-natives should be told about this "wrong grammar"- with the purpose of increasing their ability to undertand the English language. And because the profile picture I use is not my real picture, I try to distinguish the colloquial from the formal usage - but first, to be able to do so, I need to know that there is a colloquial expression that is used instead of something I know from the grammar books. Otherwise - I would feel more like the monkey in the picture.

PS, my apologies to all the monkeys of the world - I think you are awesome and lovely animals - and not stupid at all


----------

