Consider the following two sentences:

  1. If I had a free year, I would have traveled the world.
  2. If I had a free year, I would travel the world.

Is sentence 1 referring past not probable thing?

Is sentence 2 referring present not probable thing? i.e. I don't have a free year now, so I can't travel.



The first sentence isn't really correct. It should read:

If I had had a free year, I would have traveled the world.

(In everyday speech, it is often spoken the way you wrote it, with a single had. I think it's more often spoken correctly, but both are common.)

It's called the third conditional; it refers to a hypothetical situation in the past, which (since it has already failed to happen) is really an impossibility.

Sentence #2 is an example of the second conditional—exactly as you say, it's something that would be in the present, but is actually not probable.

  • Yes, nicely answered. I never could hold on to money. If I'd had a million dollars when I was a young man, I'd still be a poor man today. I agree many would avoid the double "had" but it sounds more elegant to me. – Andrew Mar 9 '18 at 6:44
  • @Andrew I think that's what I hear the most, actually -- people contracting the first had, but including them both. – spoko Mar 9 '18 at 12:56

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.