[Grammar] if you would have predicted five years ago

[emp0608]

Hi folks,

When he met with Aung San Suu Kyi , President Obama said, "And if you would have predicted five years ago that Aung San Suu Kyi would now be here sitting as the newly elected representative of her country, many people would have been skeptical."

Grammatically it should have been "if you had predicted", but many native speakers of English, including Obama, don't seem to care about this too much. Why so? Any comments?

Thanks in advance.

emp0608

 

[Matthew Wai]

I found this https://www.grammarly.com/handbook/...tional-sentences-would-have-in-the-if-clause/

 

[ChinaDan]

Hi folks,

When he met with Aung San Suu Kyi , President Obama said, "And if you would have predicted five years ago that Aung San Suu Kyi would now be here sitting as the newly elected representative of her country, many people would have been skeptical."

Grammatically it should have been "if you had predicted", but many native speakers of English, including Obama, don't seem to care about this too much. Why so? Any comments?

I think "if you would have..." is fine.

 

[Skrej]

You can read about the past unreal conditional here, which explains why what he said is actually grammatically correct.

 

[Matthew Wai]

many native speakers of English, including Obama, don't seem to care about this too much.

The author of the following seems to care about this.
http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/verbs/if-i-would-have-vs-if-i-had/

 

[Raymott]

I think "if you would have..." is fine.

It is if that's what he meant, but it seems that he meant, "If you had predicted ..."
"Many people would have been skeptical" only if the person had predicted it. They would not have been skeptical only if the person "would have predicted it" under some unnamed condition.

Hence, it's only fine if you don't care that people might question your grammar. Naturally, those who use "would have" for 'had' as many do, won't agree. We've had this discussion before, and several regulars here do use it. The other drawback of its use is that "If you would have ..." is then not available to mean "If you would have...."

 

[jutfrank]

You can read about the past unreal conditional here, which explains why what he said is actually grammatically correct.

Where exactly?

As a teacher, I would say say that what Obama said was a typical error. It's particularly prevalent in American English -- I hear it all the time, which suggests that's it's becoming natural use, but I'd still say that it's wrong (meaning I would correct it.)

I suspect that it's a result of two things. First, the contraction of I had (I'd) having become confused with I would (I'd). Second, I think there's a natural tendency for an extra syllable to intrude after the had, purely for rhythmic reasons, creating the illusion of an unstessed have. For example, if I'd known becomes if I'd've known because it's easier to say, by avoiding a double consonant. And because the brain cannot compute had have together, it understands would have.

 

[Raymott]

You can read about the past unreal conditional here, which explains why what he said is actually grammatically correct.

I can't see any examples there of "If he would have..." or "would have" in the "if" clause. In fact, I've never seen a good defence of this usage.

It obviously occurs in some dialects or idiolects. It's not grammatical in standard English.

 

[jutfrank]

Is there even any kind of defence at all? Apart from that it's a common mistake (so therefore not a mistake)?

 

[emsr2d2]

Something being a common mistake doesn't make it correct, nor is it a defence. If it were, we'd accept "I could/would/should of ..." as correct as it's one of the most common mistakes in BrE.

 

[jutfrank]

Something being a common mistake doesn't make it correct, nor is it a defence. If it were, we'd accept "I could/would/should of ..." as correct as it's one of the most common mistakes in BrE.

This is exactly what I was going to say to support my point. It shows that we are, as teachers, naturally prescriptive. I wonder if any of us would take a descriptive approach to this one?

 

[Tdol]

You will hear if you would have predicted used in BrE, but it is not that common, and still sounds wrong to many. I am not sure that it has reached the level where descriptivism would cover it, unlike if I was/were.

 

[emsr2d2]

I associate the "If I would have" construction with AmE. In BrE, I would say we use only "If I had". Just yesterday, I heard "If I would have won the lottery ..." (said by an AmE speaker) and I immediately thought "Ouch! That should be "If I had won the lottery ...".

 

[jutfrank]

In BrE, I would say we use only "If I had".

If only.

As a personal peeve, I'm pretty confident I notice it every time I hear it now. I heard it just this evening on Match Of The Day (Jermain Jenas) and I definitely heard Jeremy Paxman say "if you'd've..." on Newsnight some time last year. I even corrected my mother for saying "if I'd've known" recently, too! I still hear it said by Americans more often than Brits but I'm afraid it could be spreading, which is understandable given how common it is and how high-profile some its users are.

I think it's an interesting one. If it is in fact spreading, and does so to such a point as to become standard use, would that mean that the original, currently 'correct' form have to slip out of use for that to happen? I can't imagine how both forms, being so grammatically (if not phonologically) different, could survive simutaneously. And if it doesn't spread to the level of standard use, then will it eventually disappear or could it possibly become an alternative competing form?

 

[ChinaDan]

Something being a common mistake doesn't make it correct, nor is it a defence. If it were, we'd accept "I could/would/should of ..." as correct as it's one of the most common mistakes in BrE.

You know, I personally feel conflicted on issues like these. But as much as "incorrect usage" sometimes irks me, it is, after all, one of the forces that drive the evolution of a language.

Honestly, I think "becoming a common mistake" does indeed eventually become a defense, and moreover, "proper".

If not there be truth to my utterance, alas! Perchance we all would thus still bespeak our minds in a manner in keeping with this preposterous sentence.

 

[Tdol]

After his first wife's death, Paul McCartney was asked whether he would have used an imaginary treatment if it had involved animal testing or a degree of cruelty, and he replied that if it would have worked, he would have used it. Here, I think it works better than had as it didn't exist.

 

[Tdol]

Would of done still brings out my inner prescriptivist.

 

[Rover_KE]

It brings out my inner homicidal maniac.:bad-word:

 

[ChinaDan]

I am surprised at the insistence by many people that these forms are 'incorrect' and that they jar, when, in my seven decades of hearing and speaking English I have seen so many 'uneducated' (as they were labelled when I was at school) forms gradually become accepted. Some of us descriptivist seem to have a residual prescriptive streak, as jutfrank suggested.

Interestingly, I've recently been following a discussion concerning various kinds of prescriptivism. A key point that rose up was that, while a descriptivist might shun prescriptivism in the sense of grammar and/or linguistic rules, there must nevertheless be some common consent, or to turn a phrase, consensual prescriptivism.

In other words, there must be a minimum level of consistency in popular usage to ensure understandability across populations.

This thread's example is highly germane. Grammarians will argue that this form is not correct, yet common usage has employed this form for, apparently, hundreds of years, and it is completely understood by native speakers.

This seems to be a clear instance where grammar may be permitted to inform (at most), but should never control language. Yet when we see statements by ELLs here that are difficult to understand, we native speakers unanimously agree that the statement is wrong. It is necessary for this level of prescriptivism to exist.

Perhaps, however, when something is commonly used, readily understood by native speakers, but breaks a rule of grammar...

...maybe this should not be considered "wrong" per se, but only - what can we say - unacademic?

I'm genuinely interested to hear responses.

 

[Tdol]

Same for me, when I see it.

Good point- but I do see it online by people who like to call others out as loosers.