And every morning when you woke up, you'd still be Beatrix Kiddo.


Bill tells Beatrix:
— You would've worn the costume of Arlene Plimpton. But you were born Beatrix Kiddo. And every morning when you woke up, you'd still be Beatrix Kiddo.
Kill Bill: Vol. 2, film

He means she would have worn the costume of "Arlene Plimpton" if Bill had let her marry Thomas Plympton, who she was going to marry as "Arlene" after she gave up her assassin/warrior career. But before that could happen, Bill killed Thomas and badly injured her, so she again became Beatrix to revenge herself on Bill and his gang.

I'm not sure if the underlined sentence is a second conditional. It looks like one, but it sounds odd to me in this context.
  • Glasguensis

    Signal Modulation
    English - Scotland
    I don’t know what problem they thought they were solving when they invented these stupid labels.

    It would perhaps have been more consistent to use « would still have been ».


    Senior Member
    English - England
    Presumably the missing if-clause is explained by a previous bit of dialogue that you haven’t supplied, such as “If you’d married him…”.

    It then goes into counterfactual mode by using “would have worn”, and this is continued in “you’d (you would) still be Beatrix Kiddo” – although here a different tense is used.

    But no, I don’t know why the writer changed tense, any more than anyone else does. It’s fictional dialogue, purporting to express what someone who doesn’t exist might have said in an imaginary situation. :D