would not have been / would not be injured

Number one is correct, if you intend for the introductory clause to remain the same. However, it has an awkward sound to me. Personally, i would use the past tense in sentence two: "If he had not run onto the road, he would not have been injured." By the way, in the American language, at least, one would probably more commonly say ". . . run into the road . . ."

Thanks for your prompt reply, Setanta.

You're welcome. Maybe this will make it a little more clear. I am assuming that the person referred was injured--past tense. I am suggesting that you should not mix "to do" as an auxilliary verb with "to have." That is what you see in both sentences--"to do" as the auxilliary verb in the first clause of each sentence, and "to have" as the auxilliary verb in the second clause of both sentences. My suggestion makes "to have" the auxilliary verb in both clauses.

They are both correct but one conveys a time factor. 'would have' means there is period of time as 'running onto the road' is not an isolated event but could be habitual. It shows a time period to the present.

What does this mean? We don't make choices in grammar to satisfy grammar. We make choices in grammar to satisfy meaning.



There is no "past tense in sentence two". There is a past tense FORM but that same past tense FORM also exists in sentence 1.

You, Setanta, have changed a portion to the past perfect FORM. Your entire answer is a study in confusion.

1. If he did not run onto the road, he would not be injured.

2. If he did not run onto the road, he would not have been injured.

========================


Yeah, that's much clearer, Set. Good work!

Let's only concern ourselves with the first part of each sentence for now.

In the grammar that we choose for Standard English, both of the 'if' clauses say that he routinely runs onto the road. The backshift [one tense shift back] that occurs to a statement indicates the opposite to fact position that the original statement describes.

For any counterfactual/contrary to fact 'if' clause, native speakers can intuitively "see" the opposite. It is of great benefit to EFLs if they can describe those opposites. In time they will begin to "see" them naturally.

Examples:
1. I'm not Ms Tan but if I was/were Ms Tan, ... .
2. He often/routinely runs onto the road, but if he didn't often/routinely run onto the road, ... .
3. He ran onto the road this one time, but if he hadn't run onto the road this one time, ... .

1. If he did not run onto the road, he would not be injured.

The counterfactual to this one is,

He does run onto the road, and the result of that behavior is that he is now injured.

2. If he did not run onto the road, he would not have been injured.

The counterfactual to this one is the same as for 1.

He does run onto the road, and the result of that behavior is that something has injured him [a passive construction].

If the focus is on this one particular instance of running onto the road, in Standard English, we would use,

If he hadn't run onto the road, ... .

The result, described in the second part could be either,

he wouldn't be injured

which describes the state he is in

OR it could be,

he wouldn't have been injured

which describes, again, that something has injured him; it is a passive construction.

Now, the kicker and this is what complicates things. Often, in everyday language, in Nonstandard English [which is still perfectly correct] speakers use a simple past tense FORM to describe these one time events which would be described in Standard English with a past perfect FORM.

Notice that I keep emphasizing the word FORM. This is because we only use the FORM as a grammatical signal. With 'if, they are not actual uses of either the past tense or the past perfect.

Let's do a couple of examples to illustrate:

Fact: Ms Tan asked this question.

Standard English - If Ms Tan hadn't asked this question, ... .

Possible Nonstandard English use - If Ms Tan didn't ask this question, ... .

I've left the resulting clauses empty as, obviously, there could be multiple ideas that would flow from the 'if' clauses.

Bollocks. To you and your "American" language. You great booby.

I want to make it perfectly clear that those comments of mine were an example of dripping sarcasm.

If there's a question about English, especially English grammar, that goes beyond simple, consider Setanta's answers suspect.

Running into the road sounds like a terrific incident. At least we now know what happened.