# Si + conociste/conocieras (conditional)

#### mutagenix

##### Senior Member
Hola

I was just doing this exercise where you have to fill in the gap with either comprobarías or comprueba. The sentence was as follows:

Si conociste a Raúl, _____________ que es un poco prepotente.

Since comprueba did not make sense here at all, I chose comprobarías. The answer was marked as correct. HOWEVER, I am not sure why there is el pretérito in the first clause rather than el imperfecto de subjuntivo. I thought the latter should be used in el condicional.

• #### Doraemon-

##### Senior Member
Si conociste a Raúl habrás comprobado que es un poco prepotente.
Si conocieras a Raúl comprobarías que es un poco prepotente.

#### mutagenix

##### Senior Member
So I guess there is a mistake in the exercise. Thanks.

#### Agró

##### Senior Member
No mistake at all.

Si conociste a Raúl, comprobarías que es un poco prepotente.

#### Amapolas

##### Senior Member
No mistake at all.

Si conociste a Raúl, comprobarías que es un poco prepotente.
It is odd, though. In my experience, or my variety of Spanish, Doraemon's alternatives are more normal.

#### Peterdg

##### Senior Member
It is odd, though. In my experience, or my variety of Spanish, Doraemon's alternatives are more normal.
It is a type I conditional, but in the past.

If you turn the following sentence to the past: "Si conoces a Raúl, comprobarás que es un poco prepotente", you get "Si conociste a Raúl, comprobarías que es un poco prepotente".

The version with "conocieras" is a type II conditional.

#### Amapolas

##### Senior Member
If you turn the following sentence to the past: "Si conoces a Raúl, comprobarás que es un poco prepotente", you get "Si conociste a Raúl, comprobarías que es un poco prepotente".
I see, and it makes sense. However, perhaps I'd normally say 'habrías comprobado' in these sentences, and I'd use 'comprobarías' combined with 'si conocieras'. Wouldn't you say it's more common, or is it just me?