The thing I don't understand about mixed conditionals is this example from my book:
A. “If Anna were here, she would've known what to do.” (but Anna's not here, so she can't help us.)
It says before that that mixed conditionals, where there is this type: Past simple - would + have + past participle, usage is: unreal present situations, usually imaginary permanent states, which could have had some consequences in the past.
In my language, you cannot possibly have some present situation that had / can have consequences in the past. How is this possible?
Can someone simplify the usage?
I have these questions:
B. If you (wear) a beard all the time, they (not recognize) you without it.
I believe it should sound like this:
If you wore a beard all the time, they wouldn't have recognized you without it.
Just because it sounds natural, but not because it might be correct. Can someone explain the usage listed above (in B)? What I'm thinking is: if you wore a beard—that's imaginary, not real now—they wouldn't have recognized you without it; meaning that in the past it could've had some consequences if you did and were like this like you are today. (Which you aren't actually.)
C. If the Earth (stop), everything (be) changed in the world.
I believe that this is the answer:
If the Earth had stopped, everything would be changed in the world.
but why wouldn't it be this?:
If the Earth stopped, everything would have been changed.?
If it stopped, it's not moving, then this could've caused changes in the past?
D. She (win) the beauty pageant if she (wear) different clothes.
This is my answer:
She would win the beauty pageant if she had worn different clothes.
Because here we have some past event—wearing different clothes—which causes the victory ... and she would've just won it - but she didn't, because she hadn't worn different clothes. They are probably talking about it after but near the end of that competition.
Were these right explanations? If someone could, please summarize the usage of these 2 mixed conditionals (past simple - would + perfect infinitive, and past perfect - would + infinitive).
EDIT: I found another sentence I'm not sure about - it says I should comment on it (in mixed conditionals, only the 2 types I listed above):
E. They are injured because they were driving very quickly.
I'd say here:
If they hadn't driven (or maybe "been driving") very quickly, they wouldn't be injured.
Because it's a past event... but when I think about it, even though it's obviously not a "permanent state", but you could say:
If they didn't drive very quickly, they wouldn't have been injured.
I really can't tell the difference when I look at the usage box in my book.