With the explosion of telecommunications in our modern world, we now have more TV channels than ever before, including some which broadcast only news, 24 hours a day, from all corners of the planet. In the not-too-distant past, if a boy in Hokkaido killed his parents, it would have been big news in his area but probably not in Kyushu. By contrast, now such a crime would surely be reported nationwide and perhaps in some other countries, as well.
(1) if a boy had killed his parents, it would have been big news
(2) if a boy killed his parents, it would have been big news
Which would be better? Don't you think (2) isn't consistent in that the main clause is subctive but the if-clause is not.
2006-12-06 21:49:00 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Languages
the first one.
for rules related to consecutio temporis (look it up!!!), you need to stay to the same "level" of past.
"had killed" is past perfect, "have been" is also in past perfect.
"killed" is simple past - would not match. you would then have to write "if a boy killed his parents, it would be big news"...
2006-12-06 21:55:16 · answer #1 · answered by OneLilithHidesAnother 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
number 1 is correct.
number 2 would read: if a boy killed his parents, it would be big news.
of course you can be nasty and say:
if a boy killed his parents, it would have been big news 30 years ago, but today it is normal.
but that is pretty hairsplitting and far-fetched!
2006-12-07 09:24:20 · answer #2 · answered by saehli 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, definately 1)
2006-12-07 05:53:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Number one most definitely-number two sounds icky!
2006-12-07 09:57:51 · answer #4 · answered by Charlotte C 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋