0

Last night as I watched a video on Youtube I heard a sentence which has gotten me into confusion.

The person on that video said:

If we would put the new tax bill aside, we would be able to solve the budget issue.

I know how in English 2nd conditional works and I suppose the sentence above is also a 2nd conditional sentence. Also, I know one can use "would" in the if-clause to make the statement/demand/suggestion more polite.

However, the first sentence does not have a sense of politeness and I quite frequently hear most native speakers of AE use this kind of 2nd conditional structure.

What I am wondering is that if I were to use this twice-would structure in an informal environment, would that be considered acceptable ? If I produced such a structure in an email to my colleague, would he/she think that I make a huge mistake or would the meaning just come across and my colleague would not even notice I made a mistake ?

KillingTime
  • 6,206
Umut Peker
  • 1
  • 1
    I don't see any issue with this sentence as a native AmE speaker, and if I heard it I wouldn't think twice about it. – Esther Mar 31 '22 at 16:48
  • Other options include "If we put...", "If we were to put ...", "If we do put ..." – DjinTonic Mar 31 '22 at 16:57
  • 3
    When you have a would in the if clause in standard English, you should read it as if we were willing to put the new tax bill aside. So your sentence is perfectly fine. On the other hand, sentences like if it would rain, the ducks would be happy are generally considered unacceptable (except in certain dialects of American English). – Peter Shor Mar 31 '22 at 17:22
  • 1
    Holding the spoken word to the strictness of the written word is gonna hurt. A lot. Using would is overkill, and also okay. – Yosef Baskin Mar 31 '22 at 17:22
  • The grammar of conditionals is in the midst of change in English usage. The 'rules' I was taught in school over 50 years ago less and less reflect what people actually say or write. In the so-called 'second conditional' (what used to be called 'future remote/unlikely/impossible'), You used either "if I were to put..." or just "if I put".The grammar of conditionals is in the midst of change in English usage. The 'rules' I was taught in school over 50 years ago less and less reflect what people actually say or write. [continued] – Tuffy Mar 31 '22 at 22:33
  • In the so-called 'second conditional' (what used to be called 'future remote/unlikely/impossible'), You used either "if I were to put..." or just "if I put". You can make it unmistakeable by using the alternative "if I were to put" as has already been said in another comment. I cannot answer for American English, but to me, a Brit, "If I would put", in this context, looks odd. – Tuffy Mar 31 '22 at 22:35
  • @PeterShor is correct; this is the would that means to be willing (see 8 at Macmillan). – Tinfoil Hat Apr 01 '22 at 02:09

1 Answers1

0

In a comment, Peter Shor wrote:

When you have a would in the if clause in standard English, you should read it as if we were willing to put the new tax bill aside. So your sentence is perfectly fine. On the other hand, sentences like if it would rain, the ducks would be happy are generally considered unacceptable (except in certain dialects of American English).

tchrist
  • 134,759