# 'if + past perfect' for a future hypothesis.

< Previous | Next >

#### HSS

##### Senior Member
If 'his visit' has not taken place yet, is the use of 'had found' proper?

I checked on if all the equipment worked, and found a power supply was down. It would have been worse if I had found it in the middle of his visit.
EDIT: I corrected 'on' changing it to 'if.' My oversight.

Last edited:
• #### VicNicSor

##### Banned
The possibility of happening so is in the past now that he's found the problem. So I think it's ok to use a 3rd conditional here.

#### PaulQ

##### Senior Member
I checked on all the equipment worked,I checked that all the equipment worked,

is the use of 'had found' proper? Yes. It is subjunctive.

#### HSS

##### Senior Member
The possibility of happening so is in the past now that he's found the problem. So I think it's ok to use a 3rd conditional here.
I checked on all the equipment worked,I checked that all the equipment worked,

is the use of 'had found' proper? Yes. It is subjunctive.
Oooops, yes, it should have been 'I checked that ...' or 'I checked if ....'
So it's okay to use 'had found it' when 'finding it,' if ever, occurs in the future? (Note his visit is in the future)

Last edited:

#### dona83

##### Senior Member
it's an possibility in the past and it's unreal because i have actually found that the power supply was down before the visit therefore you should use the following structure:

If clause PAST PERFECT i.e. if I had found it later
Consequence clause WOULD + HAVE + PARTICIPLE i.e would have been worst

#### HSS

##### Senior Member
The condition given here is that 'his visit' is in the future at the time of utterance. So the possibility of 'finding the trouble' is in the future too, again, at the time of utterance. (Please note the finding would happen 'in the middle of his visit, which is in the future) But it's grammatically okay to use 'had found' a third conditional, which you often see used to describe past unreality. Correct?

It would have been worse if I had found it (>>> future) in the middle of his visit (>>> future).

#### VicNicSor

##### Banned
So the possibility of 'finding the trouble' is in the future too
The visit is in the future, but the possibility is gone, since the problem has been fixed, so it is now in the past.

#### Forero

##### Senior Member
I checked on all the equipment worked, and found a power supply was down. It would have been worse if I had found it in the middle of his visit.
If 'his visit' has not taken place yet, is the use of 'had found' proper?
The sentence is about a time that did not exist. The future did not exist yet, so I suppose you could say "It would have been worse had I found it in the middle of his visit tomorrow." (It was not found during tomorrow's visit.) Is that what you mean?

There is nothing in the sentence as written to tell us that "his visit" is not a real visit in the past.

#### dona83

##### Senior Member
I don't agree with you as you are talking now about something that has already happened (or not happened ). At the time of utterance you are referring to something that is already past you.
It would be different if you said: It will be worse if I finds it in the middle of his visit tomorrow. That is an hypothetical situation in the future.

#### wandle

##### Senior Member
I checked on all the equipment worked, and found a power supply was down. It would have been worse if I had found it in the middle of his visit.
What is the source of this quotation? It is not well put and the faulty expression confuses the issue.

The closed (hypothetical) past conditional is valid for the context, but the sentences require correction and clarification before being properly discussed.

Last edited:

#### HSS

##### Senior Member
I've thrown the correction into the quotation. It's my rendition, wandle.

I can easily see find it in [1] stands idiomatically and semantically with tomorrow, but the sentence holds the possibility of finding it. The current situation rules it out; hence, the choice is [2]? Had found it (which, as a third conditional, is normally used to describe unreality in the past) and tomorrow can co-occur. Am I correct?
[1] It will be worse if I find it in the middle of his visit tomorrow.
[2] It would have been worse if I had found it in the middle of his visit tomorrow.

#### wandle

##### Senior Member
I've thrown the correction into the quotation. It's my rendition, wandle.
I would still want to make some changes for brevity and clarity:
I checked all the equipment, and found a power supply was down. Things would have been worse if I had found it in the middle of his visit.
'Things' is better than 'it', which people might think meant the same as 'it' in the 'if' clause.

Sentence (1) does not make sense, because 'it' in the 'if' clause has no meaning. What does it refer to? The sentence is telling us that nothing has yet been found.

(2a) 'Things would have been worse if I had found it in the middle of his visit tomorrow.'

This formulation is valid and clear. It may seem illogical, but there is no other option.

A closed (or hypothetical) future conditional (2nd conditional) would not work, because the sentence 'Things would be worse if I found it tomorrow' is still telling us, just like (1), that nothing has yet been found, so once again, the word 'it' has no meaning.

What the closed past conditional (3rd conditional) does in this case is take the idea of finding a problem during the visit, seen as future from the point before the search was made, and tell us that that potential occurrence became unreal (and thus impossible) at the point when the problem was found, which is past at the time when the sentence is spoken or written.

Because that possibility then ceased to exist, it cannot any longer be seen as future from the viewpoint of the present. It has simply been excluded from reality altogether.

Last edited:

#### HSS

##### Senior Member
Great, wandle. I see it now. Thanks so very much!

< Previous | Next >