0

Which one would be correct:

  1. If they were to do it, he would not agree.
  2. If they had done it, he would not agree.
1

They mean different things.

'If they were to do it...' means that they might (or might not) do it in the future, and if they do, he will not agree.

'If they had done it...' means that they definitely have not (in the past) done it, but if they had, he would not (in the present) agree. '... he would not have agreed', putting his disagreement in the past with their action, might be a bit more typical, but I think either is possible.

In order to use the first form in the past tense, you'd use 'if they were to have done it...' which would still imply that they might not have.

0

I believe that the correct way to say it is If they were to do it, he would not agree. The alternative is If they had done it, he would not agree but agree is in present tense with its surroundings and so that sentence would probably be more suitable as If they had done it, he would not have agreed.

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.