3 added 176 characters in body

Another thing that clashes with what weWe were taught at school. We were taught that condition 3 (would+have+v3) is used for unreal past, which means "there is no more chance for it to happen in the other way around" such as "if you had driven the car carefully, he would not have died". OneSo, we can easily understand that "condition 3" is used there is no more opportunity for itsomething to happen in another way because it already happened in the past. You can't reverse the time.

But today, I was watching ITV and the TV presenter, when he appeared after a break, said: "if you were watching earlier, you would have heard me talk about the solution."

He simply referred to his previous talk about a solution before the break. And break time-time passed by. So he started to talkappeared again and he continued talking on the same issue. So he wanted to remind the viewers that he was talking about this issue before the break time.

But I got confused when heI heard him said ""if you were watching earlier, you would have heard me talk about the solution." Because heHe used "...conditional 3 (would have v3...") which seemed irrevelant to the situation, as herein this situation he is not referring to a wish about a past event which he now wishes to happen otherwisehave happened in the opposite way. HeWhat he is only guessingdoing is to guess something did happen.

So, the situation here is not a wish for past event, and butit is only a guess or presumption about a past event.

So, my first question:So; 1- why did TV presenter say "if you were......., you would have heard me..."?

Secondly 2- Is this really conditional 3, do you thinkbecause the "if+sentence" is not past perfect. 3- Would it would be more convenientnot have been better if he instead said "....you must have heard me...", not "would have heard" because he is guession or presuming that something was highly likely the case.

Regards,

Another thing that clashes with what we were taught at school. We were taught that condition 3 (would+have+v3) is used for unreal past, which means "there is no more chance for it to happen in the other way around" such as "if you had driven the car carefully, he would not have died". One can easily understand that there is no more opportunity for it because it happened in the past. You can't reverse the time.

But today, I was watching ITV and the TV presenter, after a break, said: "if you were watching earlier, you would have heard me talk about the solution."

He simply referred to his previous talk about a solution before the break. And break time passed. So he started to talk again on the same issue. So he wanted to remind the viewers that he was talking about this issue before the break time.

But I got confused when he said ""if you were watching earlier, you would have heard me talk about the solution." Because he used "...would have v3..." which seemed irrevelant to the situation, as here he is not referring to a wish about a past event which he wishes to happen otherwise. He is only guessing something did happen.

So, the situation here is not a wish for past event, and but a guess or presumption about a past event.

So, my first question: why did TV presenter say "if you were......., you would have heard me..."?

Secondly, do you think it would be more convenient if he instead said "....you must have heard me...", because he is presuming that something was highly likely the case.

Regards,

We were taught at school that condition 3 (would+have+v3) is used for unreal past, which means "there is no more chance for it to happen in the other way around" such as "if you had driven the car carefully, he would not have died". So, we can easily understand that "condition 3" is used there is no more opportunity for something to happen in another way because it already happened in the past. You can't reverse the time.

But today, I was watching ITV and the TV presenter, when he appeared after a break, said: "if you were watching earlier, you would have heard me talk about the solution."

He simply referred to his previous talk about a solution before the break. And break-time passed by. So he appeared again and he continued talking on the same issue. So he wanted to remind the viewers that he was talking about this issue before the break time.

But I got confused when I heard him said ""if you were watching earlier, you would have heard me talk about the solution." He used conditional 3 (would have v3) which seemed irrevelant to the situation, as in this situation he is not referring to a past event which he now wishes to have happened in the opposite way. What he is doing is to guess something did happen. So, the situation here is not a wish for past event, and it is only a guess or presumption about a past event.

So; 1- why did TV presenter say "if you were......., you would have heard me..."? 2- Is this really conditional 3, because the "if+sentence" is not past perfect. 3- Would it not have been better if he instead said "....you must have heard me...", not "would have heard" because he is guession or presuming that something was highly likely the case.

Regards,

2 added 478 characters in body

Another thing that clashes with what we were taught at school. We were taught that condition 3 (would+have+v3) is used for unreal past, which means "there is no more chance for it to happen in the other way around" such as "if you had driven the car carefully, he would not have died". One can easily understand that there is no more opportunity for it because it happened in the past. You can't reverse the time.

But today, I was watching ITV and the TV presenter, after a break, said: "if you were watching earlier, you would have heard me talk about the solution."

He simply referred to the fact that he was talkinghis previous talk about a solution before the break. And break time passed. So he was backstarted to talk again talking on the same issue. So he wanted to remind the viewers that he was talking about this issue even before the break time.

But I got confused becausewhen he said ""if you were watching earlier, you would have heard me talk about the solution." Because he used "...would have v3..." which seemed irrevelant to the situation, as here he is not referring to a wish about a past event which he wishes to happen otherwise. He is only guessing something did happen.

As far as we know, "would have v3 (conditional 3)" is used for unreal pastSo, and the situation here is not an unreala wish for past event, and but a guess or presumption about a past event.

So, my first question: why did TV presenter say "if you were......., you would have heard me..."?

Secondly, And do you think it would be more convenient if he instead said "....you must have heard me...", because he is presuming that something was highly likely the case.

Regards,

Another thing that clashes with what we were taught at school. We were taught that condition 3 (would+have+v3) is used for unreal past.

But today, I was watching ITV and the TV presenter, after a break, said: "if you were watching earlier, you would have heard me talk about the solution."

He simply referred to the fact that he was talking about a solution before the break. And break time passed. So he was back again talking on the same issue. So he wanted to remind the viewers that he was talking about this issue even before the break time.

But I got confused because he used "...would have v3..." which seemed irrevelant to the situation.

As far as we know, "would have v3 (conditional 3)" is used for unreal past, and the situation here is not an unreal past.

So, my first question: why did TV presenter say "if you were......., you would have heard me..."?

Secondly, And do you think it would be more convenient if he said "....you must have heard me...", because he is presuming that something was highly likely the case.

Regards,

Another thing that clashes with what we were taught at school. We were taught that condition 3 (would+have+v3) is used for unreal past, which means "there is no more chance for it to happen in the other way around" such as "if you had driven the car carefully, he would not have died". One can easily understand that there is no more opportunity for it because it happened in the past. You can't reverse the time.

But today, I was watching ITV and the TV presenter, after a break, said: "if you were watching earlier, you would have heard me talk about the solution."

He simply referred to his previous talk about a solution before the break. And break time passed. So he started to talk again on the same issue. So he wanted to remind the viewers that he was talking about this issue before the break time.

But I got confused when he said ""if you were watching earlier, you would have heard me talk about the solution." Because he used "...would have v3..." which seemed irrevelant to the situation, as here he is not referring to a wish about a past event which he wishes to happen otherwise. He is only guessing something did happen.

So, the situation here is not a wish for past event, and but a guess or presumption about a past event.

So, my first question: why did TV presenter say "if you were......., you would have heard me..."?

Secondly, do you think it would be more convenient if he instead said "....you must have heard me...", because he is presuming that something was highly likely the case.

Regards,

1

# "would have v3" or "must have v3" for presumption in the past

Another thing that clashes with what we were taught at school. We were taught that condition 3 (would+have+v3) is used for unreal past.

But today, I was watching ITV and the TV presenter, after a break, said: "if you were watching earlier, you would have heard me talk about the solution."

He simply referred to the fact that he was talking about a solution before the break. And break time passed. So he was back again talking on the same issue. So he wanted to remind the viewers that he was talking about this issue even before the break time.

But I got confused because he used "...would have v3..." which seemed irrevelant to the situation.

As far as we know, "would have v3 (conditional 3)" is used for unreal past, and the situation here is not an unreal past.

So, my first question: why did TV presenter say "if you were......., you would have heard me..."?

Secondly, And do you think it would be more convenient if he said "....you must have heard me...", because he is presuming that something was highly likely the case.

Regards,