Look at these examples to see how third and mixed conditionals are used.
We would have walked to the top of the mountain if the weather hadn't been so bad.
If we'd moved to Scotland when I was a child, I would have a Scottish accent now.
If she was really my friend, she wouldn't have lied to me.
Try this exercise to test your grammar.
- Grammar test 1
Read the explanation to learn more.
Grammar explanation
Do you know how to use third and mixed conditionals?
Third conditionals and mixed conditionals
Conditionals describe the result of a certain condition. The if clause tells you the condition (If I hadn't been ill) and the main clause tells you the result (I would have gone to the party). The order of the clauses does not change the meaning.
If I hadn't been ill, I would have gone to the party.
I would have gone to the party if I hadn't been ill.
Conditional sentences are often divided into different types.
Third conditional
The third conditional is used to imagine a different past. We imagine a change in a past situation and the different result of that change.
If I had understood the instructions properly, I would have passed the exam.
We wouldn't have got lost if my phone hadn't run out of battery.
In third conditional sentences, the structure is usually: If + past perfect >> would have + past participle.
Mixed conditionals
We can use mixed conditionals when we imagine a past change with a result in the present or a present change with a result in the past.
1. Past/Present
Here's a sentence imagining how a change in a past situation would have a result in the present.
If I hadn't got the job in Tokyo, I wouldn't be with my current partner.
So the structure is: If + past perfect >> would + infinitive.
2. Present/Past
Here's a sentence imagining how a different situation in the present would mean that the past was different as well.
It's really important. If it wasn't, I wouldn't have called you on your holiday.
And the structure is: If + past simple >> would have + past participle.
Do this exercise to test your grammar again.
- Grammar test 2
Hello Tony_M,
Yes, that is perfectly fine.
The form would + verb here refers to typical behaviour for the person, while would have + verb3 most often refers to expected behaviour in a particular situation or set of situations.
However, when the context makes it clear that we are talking about a finished time context (i.e. the person is no longer alive) or that we are talking about general behaviour (through the use of the word 'never'), these distinctions are academic. Lexical additions and contexts can limit or change the meaning of verb forms. For example, we can say 'He went to the cafe' to mean a single action or 'He always went to the cafe' to mean a habit.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Thank you very much, Peter.
Would the same idea work in a conditional sentence?
A: Why are you late?
B: The traffic in the city center is very heavy. Some streets are blocked because of a protest march.
A: I see, they are very common now.
B: Yes, many things have changed in the last few years. If people organized such marches 20 years ago, they would've been beaten by the police in the majority of cases.
Is there any difference between:
- they would've been beaten by the police in the majority of cases;
- they would be beaten by the police in the majority of cases.
Hello again Tony_M,
I think here you are a little off with the verb in the if-clause. Since you are talking about an unreal/imaginary act in the past you need the past perfect: If they had organised.... rather than If they organised...
Following this if-clause would have been beaten describes a past result while would be beaten describes a present result. You can perhaps imagine some context in which a present beating is caused by searching in past records but I think it's fairly clear from this example that the beating was in the past, so would have been beaten is the correct form here.
The earlier sentence used would and would have to describe expected or representative behaviour. Here you have a condition-result relationship.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Greetings,
Thank you very much, Peter.
No, I don't want to talk about an unreal/imaginary act in the past.
I want to use a backshifted zero conditional sentence. I found this information here: https://www.grammaring.com/zero-conditional-in-indirect-speech
Can I replace 'would be beaten' with 'would have been beaten' if I want to convey the idea of expected behavior, not repeated action?
Also, I found this one:
Grosser vs. Corniche: Old Car Challenge Part 1 - Top Gear - BBC, 2:53 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVDKztQ-n1U
James May: In fact, I like to believe that if you worked at Rolls Royce in the 1970s, and you ever used a word like handling or sporty, you'd've been fired.
Hello again Tony_M,
Yes, that's right.
It's our policy to not comment on other sites' explanations or views. What I will say is that what is sometimes termed the zero conditional uses present + present to express something which is always true:
If I drink milk, I get a bad stomach.
The equivalent in the past uses past + past:
(When I was a child) If I drank milk, I got a bad stomach.
Your quoted sentence does not describe a general truth but rather speculation - a statement of what the speaker believes will be the result given a plausible conditional. It is more like a past equivalent of what is sometimes termed the first conditional (present + will):
If they organize something like this today, they will be beaten by the police in the majority of cases.
If they organized something like this 20 years ago, they would be beaten by the police in the majority of cases.
I think would have been here suggests retrospection. In other words, the speaker is imagining 'them' having already been beaten. The speaker can choose a point of view pre- or post-beating and it does not change the relationship between the actions in my view.
If they organized something like this 20 years ago, they would be beaten by the police in the majority of cases.
If they organized something like this 20 years ago, they would have been beaten by the police in the majority of cases. [In my mind's eye I can see the bruises]
I'm sorry but we're not going to comment on spur-of-the-moment comments by a TV presenter in a live broadcast which may or may not represent good language use.
Please remember that this site is aimed at language learners with concrete and brief questions. We're a very small team here providing a free service for many thousands of users and we can't engage long discussions like this. We do our best to help but I hope you understand the limits we have.
StackExchange has an English language section which is very good for these kinds of discussions:
https://english.stackexchange.com/
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Thank you.
Hello Peter,
This explanation of yours and the user's question is again in contradiction to this comment of mine: https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/comment/206039#comment-206039
Would have suggests something that did not happen or is hypothetical rather than likely: https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/comment/206087#comment-206087
He would never have worn any of his masterpieces could suggest that in reality he wore his masterpieces. The complete sentence could be: He would never have worn any of his masterpieces if he hadn't been in public.
This is too confusing aspect of English Grammar. What would you say? I'm waiting.
Shetu Y Bindu.
Hello again ShetuYogme,
I'm afraid we really do not have time to go back and read two earlier comments in order to compare with a third later comment so we can answer a fourth comment referring to them, all in order to discuss a sentence which could be part of another construction (but also may not be).
I think we've been more than patient answering your multiple questions on this topic. I hope we've provided some degree of clarity with our answers.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Shetu,
I'm afraid we don't offer such in-depth attention. The comments are here for questions directly related to what's on the page and are not for extended, in-depth discussions as the one you are trying to have here and which the team has provided for you on other pages. Please don't expect us to continue with this; we may not even publish your comments if they are not in line with what I've described here.
The British Council does offer online courses that you could consider, though really what would be best is a one-to-one class with a teacher who's very comfortable with English grammar. None of us on the LearnEnglish team are able to do this for you, and especially not here in the comments.
Best wishes,
Kirk
LearnEnglish team
Hello,
thank you for the explanation.
the third conditional seems clear for me, but the mixed conditional isn't . the rules are not very clear and similair for me.
is it rang to use only the third conditional for all exemples when reading?