1

I want to know what is the difference between these two examples below.

.1 If I had studied English grammar very hard, I would have been a good writer.

.2 If I had studied English grammar very hard, I would be a good writer.

2

I agree with JVL's answer up to a point, but he has not quite answered the question. The two sentences under discussion are

1) If I had studied English grammar very hard, I would have been a good writer.

and

2) If I had studied English grammar very hard, I would be a good writer.

I have no argument with JVL's analysis of 1) with or without "good", but the addition of "good" to 2) can change the meaning. It is grammatically correct as it is and means that the speaker is a writer now but not a good one, because he didn't study grammar hard enough in the past.

| improve this answer | |
  • That means both sentence are correct? – Abu Omar Oct 6 '19 at 16:41
  • @ I have forgotten good but past perfect for the improbable conditional is not correct according to grammarians – successive suspension Oct 6 '19 at 16:53
  • @AbuOmar. Your second sentence is grammatically wrong.You can not find such a sentence in any standard grammar book.Please read the link I provided in my answer – successive suspension Oct 6 '19 at 17:10
  • @AbuOmar In my opinion yes, JVL not so much. Not being a grammarian I leave it to them to explain why I am wrong. – Peter Jennings Oct 6 '19 at 17:12
  • @PeterJennings I see what you are saying. But writing "I would have been a good writer" also means "the speaker is a writer now but not a good one, because he didn't study grammar hard enough in the past." To me, both versions say that the writer "not a good one". – AIQ Oct 6 '19 at 18:19

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.