English Language Learners Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for speakers of other languages learning English. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
- If you were not blind, you would have avoided the other car.
This is unreal. I want to know what is the "corresponding" real situation:
- If you are not blind, you will have avoided the other car. (Viewing from the present)
- If you were not blind, you avoided the other car. (Talking about the situation in the past)
"Because you are blind, you didn't avoid the other car"
The corresponding real situation doesn't involve conditions, but causes and results. The cause is your blindness, and the result is you hit the other car.
Real situations don't contain "if". The corresponding situation might be something like
You are blind, so you did not avoid the other car.
You were blind, so you did not avoid the other car.
Or it might be
You are/were not blind, so you avoided the other car.
The conditional doesn't tell us which one happened; that's why it's a conditional. (From a logician's view, of course. We know which one happened, but inside the conditional itself, both are "unreal".)
We're also missing a distinction between past and present, which of course doesn't change the meaning much, but we can't quite convert it 1:1, hence the "are/were" uncertainty.
