If you knew how bad things were... or If you knew how bad things are

Question

Which one is correct and why?

If you knew how bad things were, you would not go on vacation right now.

or

If you knew how bad things are, you would not go on vacation right now.

This is assuming that "things" are actually bad right now (that's not up for discussion).

I think which is most appropriate would depend on the context. — KillingTime, Feb 25 '20 at 16:49
and what about the context would make either option appropriate? — Nicolas, Feb 25 '20 at 17:02
The first version is a perfectly natural example of *backshifting, as in What did you say your name was?* (where clearly the speaker isn't normally suggesting your name might have changed since you last gave it out). — FumbleFingers, Feb 25 '20 at 17:26
Does this answer your question? To tell the name of a person I met in the past. Also I asked + present/past tense, and doubtless others. — FumbleFingers, Feb 25 '20 at 17:33

score 2 · Accepted Answer · answered Feb 25 '20 at 17:30

2

Both are correct, were is more formal, both can be used to refer to the present

answered Feb 25 '20 at 17:30

Algae

I don't think there's any reason to suggest that *were* is more "formal". In other contexts, *failing* to backshift is certainly more *unlikely* and more *literal*, but that's not really related to the concept of "formal language". – FumbleFingers Feb 25 '20 at 17:38
Agreed with FF here. Absolutely nothing formal about were – if anything, I’d say the backshifted version sounds slightly less thought-through and thus more colloquial. I would consider the present to be more logically valid in this case (but not in “What did you say your name was?”, where backshifting is by far the more natural and logical option). – Janus Bahs Jacquet Feb 25 '20 at 17:45
Ok, thanks for the feedback :) – Algae Feb 26 '20 at 15:15

1 Answers1