a very confusing sentence concerning the third conditional of "if"

[man of manners]

Because the after-clause refers to a real past situation. 'He had played the match' is a real event.

Perfect, Matthew. I now understand.
Now, I have one thing confusing me.
You think "after he had played" is irrelevant and can be omitted to apply the sequence of the third conditional.
then can you use "before" instead of "after" in this sentence?

 

[Matthew Wai]

How could he have won the cup before he played the match? Killed his opponent?

 

[man of manners]

I meant instead of "after" in the following sentence:
"if he had won the cup after he had played the match, I'd have been happy with him"

 

[man of manners]

Sorry, I thought that using "before" instead of "after" with a different sequence of tenses will not change the meaning but it turned out to do.
Note the sentence after changes:
"if he had played well before he won the match, I would have been happy with him"
The new sentence implies that he won but ,in fact, he did not.

Although I was mistaken at this point, I now reached some points I haven't understood before
Thanks for all who contributed their helpful viewpoints to my subject.

I think I should make my study of this question deeper regarding some more details.
I will prepare a very helpful explanation as to why the past perfect should be used, then I'll provide it to you all.

You all deserve more than a million thanks, especially Piscean and Matthew

Please, don't close my subject because it is not the very end, I think.
The game has just begun.
Once again, the subject hasn't ended yet, so anyone has any opinion or any additional or helpful information, they can share it with us.
I open the thread every day. I will not leave the subject until I am 100% certain. This will not happen except after more opinions are given and more research is done.

 

[man of manners]

It does not imply that.
Please leave a space after a comma, not before one.

Why do you think so?
Can you explain this?

 

[man of manners]

The time clause is not part of the hypothetical condition.
To put it the same way: The time clause is not part of the hypothetical condition.

I know but the if-clause implies that the subject "he" did not play well but he won anyway.
The same applies to the first sentence we discussed.
"if he had won the cup after he had played the match, I would have been happy with him". It implies that the subject "he" did not win but he did play.

 

[Raymott]

I know but the if-clause implies that the subject "he" did not play well but he won anyway.
The same applies to the first sentence we discussed.
"if he had won the cup after he had played the match, I would have been happy with him". It implies that the subject "he" did not win but he did play.

It seems you're trying to make a distinction between:
"If he had won the cup, I would have been happy with him."
"If he had won the cup after playing the match, I would have been happy with him."
"If he had won the cup before playing the match, I would have been happy with him."
"If he had won the cup despite not having played the match, I would have been happy with him."
"If he had won the cup under any circumstances, I would have been happy with him."
"If he had won the cup after having played the match, after having come to the field after having had his breakfast, I would have been happy with him."

The red clauses/phrases don't affect the tense in which the other two clauses have to be.

 

[Matthew Wai]

"if he had played well before he won the match, I would have been happy with him"

'He won the match' is a fact, and 'he had played well' is the opposite of the fact.

"if he had won the cup after he had played the match, I would have been happy with him".

'He had played the match' is a fact, and 'he had won the cup' is the opposite of the fact.

 

[man of manners]

It seems you're trying to make a distinction between:
"If he had won the cup, I would have been happy with him."
"If he had won the cup after playing the match, I would have been happy with him."
"If he had won the cup before playing the match, I would have been happy with him."
"If he had won the cup despite not having played the match, I would have been happy with him."
"If he had won the cup under any circumstances, I would have been happy with him."
"If he had won the cup after having played the match, after having come to the field after having had his breakfast, I would have been happy with him."
The red clauses/phrases don't affect the tense in which the other two clauses have to be.

Thanks for this explanation.
But you didn't mention anything about "after he had played the match". Are you avoiding it? Are you avoiding giving your opinion about such a sensitive point?

 

[man of manners]

'He won the match' is a fact, and 'he had played well' is the opposite of the fact.
'He had played the match' is a fact, and 'he had won the cup' is the opposite of the fact.

Perfect, Matthew. That's exactly what I tried to tell Piscean, but he is not convinced yet.

 

[Tdol]

Why do you think so?
Can you explain this?

He did win, but for some reason you would have been happier if he had played well before the match he won. If you were his coach and thought he played badly in the semi-final, it might make sense.

 

[man of manners]

He did win, but for some reason you would have been happier if he had played well before the match he won. If you were his coach and thought he played badly in the semi-final, it might make sense.

That's a very good opinion, indeed and from which we can now be sure that the meaning will differ if we use "before" instead of "after" although we have used the same sentences but with a new order.

Thanks for this additional information.
If you have any other opinion, share it with us, please.

 

[Raymott]

Thanks for this explanation.
But you didn't mention anything about "after he had played the match". Are you avoiding it? Are you avoiding giving your opinion about such a sensitive point?

I've given you my opinion in post #3 on the first page. That's hardly avoiding it.

PS: And why on earth do you call yourself "man of manners"?

 

[man of manners]

I've given you my opinion in post #3 on the first page. That's hardly avoiding it.

PS: And why on earth do you call yourself "man of manners"?

Why do you ask? Don't you like it? It means I am respectful and I have proven that. I have not said a bad word or shown any impoliteness. All I said to you was because of doubt.

 

[Raymott]

Why do you ask? Don't you like it? It means I am respectful and I have proven that. I have not said a bad word or shown any impoliteness. All I said to you was because of doubt.

Well, you're going to have to think of another way to present your problem, because I think everyone here has told you the answer.
Do you think some rule of grammar is being broken? If so, what is the rule? Maybe you could write a few sentences and say which ones you think are wrong and why. But persisting in asking 'What about "after he had played the match?"' doesn't seem to be getting the answer you want.
Or you could tell us the answer that you do want, and we can tell you whether it's legitimate or not. Otherwise, I don't see this going anywhere.

 

[man of manners]

Do you think some rule of grammar is being broken? If so, what is the rule? Maybe you could write a few sentences and say which ones you think are wrong and why. But persisting in asking 'What about "after he had played the match?"' doesn't seem to be getting the answer you want.
Or you could tell us the answer that you do want, and we can tell you whether it's legitimate or not. Otherwise, I don't see this going anywhere.

Thanks for your reply.
I have already understood every single piece of information we talked about here and to be honest, I got really interesting information by asking my question here and I am now investigating some information through googling and it seems to be promising. After I have already finished, I'll present some very useful examples, of how this kind of sentence works, taken from Google and I am sure we all will benefit. In brief, you have corrected me and I am grateful to every single person of you.
I will still open this thread so that I may find new or interesting opinions or information.

 

[man of manners]

I prefer to discuss further till I finish.
In general, Can we say a sentence like that? "He had broken into our house after we all had gone to bed"

 

[Matthew Wai]

I would use 'broke' and 'went' instead of 'had broken' and 'had gone' respectively.

 

[man of manners]

I would use 'broke' and 'went' instead of 'had broken' and 'had gone' respectively.

OK, but what do you feel about this sentence? Do you find it odd, strange, informal, formal or what exactly?
Tell me about your impression of it as a native speaker of English or a good speaker/learner of English.

 

[GoesStation]

I prefer to discuss further till I finish.
In general, can [STRIKE]Can[/STRIKE] we say a sentence like [STRIKE]that[/STRIKE] this? "He had broken into our house after we all had gone to bed"

Ok, but what do you feel about this sentence? Do you find it odd or strange or even formal?

It's not formal. It's a grammatically fine sentence, but it's hard to think of a context in which it would be natural.

Remember to capitalize only proper nouns, titles, and the first word of a sentence.