If I were a bird, I could have

Question

If I were a bird, I could have flown to you

這句是說

如果我是一隻鳥 我就能飛去找你嗎

我是把I could have flown to you翻譯成

"我過去就能飛去找你"

If my father were not dead, I would have introduced him to you.

(主要子句表與過去事實相反, 條件子句與現在事實相反的假設. )


請問這個句子是否要改為-->

If my father has not been dead, I would have introduced him to you

原句出處http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/question?qid=1406010618334

xytsung2001之解釋....

Answer 1

版主您好:

假設語氣的用法的確困擾著不少學習者, 或許您已經知道以下的基本原則了:

1. 講事實: 用現在式+現在式
If you do something bad, they put you in jail.

2. 講條件: 用合乎語意的時態:
If it rains, we will stay at home.(未來)
If we had time, we used to go to the movies.(過去)
If you need money, go to the ATM over there.(現在)

3. 講現在或未來不存在的狀況: 用過去式+過去式
If I were you, I would drive more carefully in the rain.

4. 講過去不存在的狀況: 用過去完成式+過去完成式
If I had had the money, I would have bought this Audi.

5. 混合型態: if子句與主要子句之時間不同


您的第一個句子:

If I were a bird, I could have flown to you.
如果我是鳥, 可能早就展翅向你飛去了.

正是屬於第五種混合型態(現在+過去).

或許有人認為: "現在"是鳥, 如何在"過去"發生動作? 所以應該寫成:
If I had been a bird, I could have flown to you.
其實這句的語意比較偏向:
如果當時我是鳥, (當時)就能展翅向你飛去了.

這種(現在+過去)的混合型態, "現在"部分的動詞, 通常表達一種"狀態", 所以雖然用的是"現在", 卻隱含"從過去到現在都存在"的狀況(現在是鳥, 過去當然也應該是鳥). 因此並不會產生前述的矛盾情形. 但是如果用的是傳達"動作"的動詞, 就可能不合邏輯(當然也有例外):
If I killed a man, I would have been put away.
如果我(現在)殺人, (當時)就會被關起來了. (???)

至於:

If I were a bird, I could fly to you.
如果(現在)我是鳥, (現在)就能展翅向你飛去了.

所以, 不同的寫法有不同的語意.

您可以參考這個網頁:
http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/mixedconditional.html

講到這裡, 再看您的第二個句子, 就應該很清楚了:

If my father were not dead, I would have introduced him to you.
如果我父親還在, 我早就介紹你們認識了.

這是文法正確的句子.

Answer 2

If I were a bird, I could fly to you.
如果我是鳥，我就能飛去你那兒。(亦即，我不是鳥。現在不真實之條件句)
版主可能誤會了條件句的「時態」問題。您補充的「我過去就能飛去找你」是不存在的條件，因為，首先，你本來就不是鳥，所以不可能使用could have(指過去未達成的條件)，如果你真要這樣說，那IF那一句就要改成：
If I have been a bird, I could have flown to you.
假如我那時是一隻鳥，我就能飛到你那兒。(過去不真實之條件句)

Answer 3

如果我是一隻鳥 我就能飛去找你嗎

If I am a bird I can fly look for you


這樣是不是比較像

Answer 4

If I were a bird, I could have flown to you

如果我是一隻鳥 我就能飛去找你

但這句話文法有點錯 紅色的部份應該改成fly
因為這句話是假設法(與現在事實相反的假設)
與「現在事實相反」的假設語氣
從屬子句　　　 主要子句



If +主詞+ were/過去式動詞…， 主詞+ would/should/could/might +原形V

2007-11-16 17:45:15 補充：
你翻的沒錯...但只是文法的地方小錯

2007-11-19 02:08:21 補充：
如果你加了<過去>這兩個字
整個句子的時態就像uncle sean 所說的一樣

If I have been a bird, I could have flown to you.
假如我那時是一隻鳥，我就能飛到你那兒。(與過去事實相反)

uncle sean 說的不真實之條件句 也有人稱假設法
因為現在教的文法 普遍稱這種句型為假設法

2007-11-21 00:25:48 補充：
Sorry.因為一時忽略 我先做一個更正
If I have been a bird, I could have flown to you.
這個條件句的have必須改為had
因為假設法 條件句的動詞都必須降級

If my father were not dead, I would have introduced him to you.
xytsung2001這句才是這確的 你舉例的那句是錯誤的
因為內容有點多 我回覆在意見的部份...

2007-11-21 00:28:53 補充：
Sorry.我又再度眼殘了
xytsung2001也是犯了一個文法小錯誤

正確應為If my father were not dead, I would have introduced him to you.
主要子句的have必需拿掉 欲知詳解請見意見欄

2007-11-21 00:29:15 補充：
正確應為If my father were not dead, I would introduced him to you.

2007-11-21 01:02:01 補充：
我舉個最簡單的例子
你要說<一個人死了> 你會怎麼說?
He is dead 這種叫直敘句
至於剩下假設法的部份你應該懂了 我就不多說

If my father had not been dead, I would have introduced him to you.
你這句是表達與過去事實相反