5

I wonder how this sentence sounds. Does it sound absurd or could it be used in some situations?

In other words, is it possible to make a correct sentence with this phrase 'if she would have studied hard'?

PS. Source: my curiosity (I maybe remember someone using this kind of sentence)

fev
  • 33,009
gomadeng
  • 769
  • It would help if you told us where you found this sentence. Can you provide a link? – fev Dec 30 '20 at 19:16
  • 1
    They are different. Would implies she chose not to. Could implies she wasn’t able to. – Jim Dec 30 '20 at 19:17
  • 2
    "if she would have studied hard" is considered grammatically incorrect. For a 2nd conditional "If she had studied hard" would be correct. – fev Dec 30 '20 at 19:19
  • 1
    @fev In the past I may have agreed to your comment, but since I stopped teaching I have seen that many native speakers speak that way. I am not sure it is grammatically incorrect. – Cascabel_StandWithUkraine_ Dec 30 '20 at 19:46
  • @ Cascabel: Good thing to know. That this sentence is grammatically incorrect, is what they taught us in universities 20 years ago. However I live in the UK for quite some time, and I don't hear "if" with "would have + 3rd form" often. I know, however, that spoken language can prevail grammar quite often. So, I understand your point. – fev Dec 30 '20 at 20:04
  • @Cascabel and fev : Thanks for your helpful advice. In Korea, we learn subjective mood of past perfect like this: If+S+had+pp, S would/could/might have pp, but may be remembering someone telling this kind of if clause (if S would have pp). So Can I reach an agreement like some native speakers say "if S would have pp" like "if S had pp" ? – gomadeng Dec 30 '20 at 20:23
  • @fev In the past, I used to repeat the dictum "never ever ever put if and would together". I regret that now. It's prescriptive thinking. – Cascabel_StandWithUkraine_ Dec 30 '20 at 20:30
  • @Brandon: I guess, in speaking don't worry so much about grammatical correctness. In writhing though you'd better check who your readers are: if they are broad minded like Cascabel here, go ahead and use "if she would have studied hard". If they are grammar freaks like me, who am not a native and like over correctness, then stick to the rules :) – fev Dec 30 '20 at 20:32
  • @fev The longer you hang out here, the more you will discover that most older users here feel the same...grammar is most often defined by usage, not by rules we learned in school. That said, I appreciate the contributions you are making here. – Cascabel_StandWithUkraine_ Dec 30 '20 at 20:54
  • 1
    @Cascabel: Oh, but I came here to learn! The best thing I like on this site is when someone explains to me my mistakes in a friendly way. That's when I learn the most. Also, I think there must be a limit to how much free one can be with grammar rules. I just guess it moves with time and usage. I agree we must adapt to the movement. But I cannot not be attracted to what I like to call "noble language" where grammar is less loose let's say. – fev Dec 30 '20 at 22:07

2 Answers2

9

Many people (Americans, at least), use this construction (would have + Past Participle),
instead of past perfect (had + Past Participle), and with the same meaning.

  • If she would have studied harder, she could have gotten an A.

  • If she had studied harder, she could have gotten an A.

Of course, this is only in writing.
What people would actually say blurs the seeming difference between these two constructions.

Auxiliary verbs are usually contracted; in particular, would is normally contracted to a single final 'd. I.e,

  • She would never do that ==> She'd never do that.
  • He would answer the phone in Swedish ==> He'd answer the phone in Swedish

Would have is contracted to would've, normally pronounced /wʊdə/,
with the /v/ dropped and only the syllable remaining.

  • He would have hung up ==> He would've hung up /hiwʊdəhə'ŋəp/

However, would've can also contract the would to /d/, as usual, so further contraction is possible, to

  • He would've hung up ==> He'd've hung up. /hidəhə'ŋəp/

which leaves only /də/ between he and the verb. Recall that this syllable is intended to be a short form of would have, at least in the mind's ear of the speaker.

And in the example sentence, that'd be

  • if she would have studied harder ==> if she'd'a studied harder

Notice that, in shortening would have successively to /də/, we have passed right through the standard contraction for the past perfect. I.e,

  • if she had studied harder ==> if she'd studied harder

so the only pronunciation difference between these two forms is the presence or absence of a reduced schwa (/ə/), which can get swallowed easily in ordinary speech.

Consequently, many people don't hear any phonetic difference between these two constructions. They look very different on paper (and there isn't any semantic difference between them), but people can't tell which one others are using, so they confuse them totally, with the usual result.

John Lawler
  • 107,887
  • 3
    I have heard people say “woulda, coulda, shoulda” as a rueful mantra when talking about a missed opportunity. Definitely idiomatic in US English. – rob Dec 31 '20 at 00:37
  • @John Lawler and rob, Thank you much for great explanations. Very detailed and informative as well and informative. – gomadeng Dec 31 '20 at 00:58
  • 1
    There’s also the occasional deontic case where If she would* have let him in, he would have seen it* gets used in the sense of If she had been willing to* let him in, he would have seen it. That's more the backshifted version of deontic if you will all please take your seats, we can get started* because deontic will/would means want to or to be willing to. – tchrist Dec 31 '20 at 01:00
  • 1
    Many people, including, but hardly ... hardly ... limited to, many Americans, speak and write every which way, without giving much thought to what they're saying. – Ricky Dec 31 '20 at 02:38
  • A point I forgot to make is that, just to complete the confusion, many people insert an epenthetic schwa with the past perfect -- She had studied hard comes out She'd'a studied hard; He had been there before comes out He'd'a been there before. So in their speech, the two constructions are in fact indistinguishable; this is how syntax changes. – John Lawler Dec 31 '20 at 15:49
4

  1. The former implies she had other things to do that seemed more important and/or pleasant at the time. The latter indicates that, in the speaker's opinion, at least, she did not have the ability to study hard.

  2. It would be better grammatically and stylistically to say "Had she studied hard, [she would have been a celebrated and well-compensated scholar by now].

Ricky
  • 20,450