4

Possible Duplicate:
“If I would have lost you” vs “If I had lost you”

My question is about a usage error involving contrary-to-fact conditionals. Instead of something like this:

  • If I knew French, I would go to Paris.
  • If I had known French, I would have gone to Paris.

People sometimes say/write something like this:

  • *If I would know French, I would go to Paris.
  • *If I would have known French, I would have gone to Paris.

My sense is that the second kind of error is more common than the first. Ten years ago, the error was committed by ESL students only, or at least that's how it seemed to me. But now I frequently encounter it in the language of native English speakers. Here are some examples of the error, taken from Google:

  • *"If I would set up the punishment you describe, I would at least grease or oil the hemp."
  • *"If they would have seen it they would have known it was not."
  • *"If I would have I would never have experienced the happiness that I have now."
  • *"I have learned a hard lesson but still continue to torture myself, mostly with the thought that if I would have pushed harder and more sincerely to be there for her, she probably would have had the baby and we'd be together."

I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this error and written about it (e.g. whether the error has become more common in recent years). I'd especially like to see discussion by real linguists (e.g. Language Log or Languagehat). At least I'd like to find some searchable phrase referring to the error (e.g., "dangling modifier").

Community
  • 1
97847658
  • 141
  • 1
    Hello 97..., why did you write "real linguists" in your question? I do not understand the use of the word "real". –  Oct 17 '12 at 19:50
  • I can't point to a formal discussion; but it's been around a lot longer than ten years. What I see happening is that "the language" as a whole is gradually evolving modal-auxiliary replacements for the dying subjunctive--I'd search on phrases around that. It's very interesting for the linguist, very frustrating for the writer. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 17 '12 at 19:52
  • @Carlo_R.: I mean "real linguists" as opposed to "armchair linguists" (most of us on the Internet). One mark of a real linguist is a PhD in linguistics. – 97847658 Oct 17 '12 at 19:58
  • 3
    You can't say "I only want the PhDs to answer this"--that's like saying "I only want Jon Skeet to answer my question on StackOverflow". –  Oct 17 '12 at 20:05
  • 97..., I endorse simchona's comment and suggest you to delete that word; it could be considered not so polite here. –  Oct 17 '12 at 20:24
  • Do retired linguists count or do they slowly fade from reality? :) – Zairja Oct 17 '12 at 20:36
  • @simchona: I'm happy for anyone, with or without a PhD, to point me to discussions by PhDs. After all, I was hoping to get links to an expert discussion, not hoping for an expert answer here in StackExchange. – 97847658 Oct 17 '12 at 20:58
  • 3
    Oh dear. Stack Exchange is designed to be the repository for expert answers. Perhaps your last paragraph should be "Has anyone else noticed this error and written about it (e.g. whether the error has become more common in recent years)? Is there some searchable phrase referring to the error (e.g., dangling modifier) which would enable to search for it better?" That way, you are more likely to get the information you are looking for, and it doesn't actually matter whether an expert points you in the direction of other experts or not. – Andrew Leach Oct 17 '12 at 21:23
  • 1
    Perhaps 97847658 meant professional linguists (paid to study & teach linguistics) instead of English enthusiasts, amateur linguists (like most of us who answer questions about English usage), English teachers, & quotidian native speakers of English who believe that native-speakerdom confers on them infallible knowledge about English. Not even the pros agree on everything: they have their ideological, theoretical, & paradigmatic biases & blindnesses. Language log & Languagehat are searchable, no? Linguistics isn't science but is sometimes math. –  Oct 18 '12 at 01:19

0 Answers0