1

Someone wrote:

We could commute with comfort in Warsaw, having enough room in our means of public transport, but for the 'sardines' getting on them.

I suggested (based on another suggestion):

We would be commuting comfortably in Warsaw with enough spaces in public transport, if it wasn't for these 'sardines' screwing things up.

First, is the original sentence with "could commute" correct?

Second, is my usage of "progressive present" in this case, correct and natural? Could you please tell the usage of this tense in conditional sentences?

0

Both sentences are mostly fine. I would remove "them" from the end of the first sentence, since we know that the "sardines" are getting on the public transport, but otherwise it makes perfect sense.

Your use of the present progressive tense is arguably better, since it suggest more of a sense of immediate exasperation. I would only make a couple of changes:

We could be commuting comfortably in Warsaw with plenty of space in public transport -- if it wasn't for all these "sardines" screwing things up.

I suggest "could" instead of "would" because it's not clear that you are introducing an actual hypothetical situation. But "would" still works fine in this context.

0

The first sentence is fine.

We would be commuting comfortably in Warsaw with enough spaces in public transport, if it wasn't for these 'sardines' screwing things up.

Your sentence is pretty good, but use 'enough space' and 'on public transport'.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.