If you had caught the train in time, you would have reached there.
If you were caught the train in time, you would have reached there
Which one is correct, and what is the difference between them?
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 communityIf you had caught the train in time, you would have reached there.
If you were caught the train in time, you would have reached there
Which one is correct, and what is the difference between them?
It's an If Clause Type 3: if + Past Perfect, main clause with Conditional II.
Example:
If I had found her address, I would have sent her an invitation.
The first sentence is correct. The auxiliary verb "had" is being used in front of participle to indicate a past perfect tense which is what is required here in this type of conditional phrase.
The second sentence is incorrect because when we use the auxiliary verb "were" in front of a participle it must indicate a passive structure (such as "The thieves were caught") and this is clearly not possible here.
In this case, the past perfect is used as a completed action before something in the past.
So same rule applies:
"If you had caught the train in time," — 1st action
"you would have reached there." — 2nd action
Hence, 1st sentence
If you had caught the train in time, you would have reached there.
is correct.
As for the 2nd sentence, it is a future subjunctive.
If you were caught the train in time, You would have reached there
Therefore, in this case, your sentence is wrong because of the grammar although it does express a condition but did not meet.
This would be the correct sentence:
If you were to catch the train on time, you would have reached there.