have/had question

[texastriathlete]

I'm helping a friend with a sentence (he's learning English). He wrote:

If he had been the right man for you, he wouldn’t had left you.

I'm sure he put "had" in both places because it's past tense, but the second "had" sounds awkward to me. I would say "If he had been the right man for you, he wouldn't have left you."
The problem is, I don't know how to explain why it should be "have" in the second part and not "had," assuming I wasn't just raised wrong .

Anyone know how to explain that grammatically?

Tina

 

[Suehil]

The first is 'had' is part of the pluperfect 'had been' (past of have + past participle, the second is past conditional 'wouldn't + infinitive of have + past participle'
I hope that makes sense.

 

[Tabac]

I'm helping a friend with a sentence (he's learning English). He wrote:

If he had been the right man for you, he wouldn’t had left you.

I'm sure he put "had" in both places because it's past tense, but the second "had" sounds awkward to me. I would say "If he had been the right man for you, he wouldn't have left you."
The problem is, I don't know how to explain why it should be "have" in the second part and not "had," assuming I wasn't just raised wrong .

Anyone know how to explain that grammatically?

Tina

he wouldn't have left you
P.S. Can you use a larger font? Some of us are getting to an age where the small print is difficult to read.

 

[Orange Blossom]

Ah, the difficulty lies in the fact that you have used the subjunctive mood. This means that what is discussed didn't happen, isn't happening, or probably won't happen. In these situations, the verb tense forms are used and named differently.

So the first clause isn't in past perfect (pluperfect), it is in regular past. That is why the second clause takes "have" and not "had" and why the 'had' sounds so strange in the 'would' clause.

Orange Blossom