His eventual defeat might have happened

Thank you, JTT.

But...



what does THAT refer to?

Part of a story:

His manner was not effusive. It seldom was; but he was glad, I think, to see me. With hardly a word spoken, but with a kindly eye, he waved me to an armchair, threw across his case of cigars, and indicated a spirit case and a gasogene in the corner. Then he stood before the fire and looked me over in his singular introspective fashion.

"Wedlock suits you," he remarked. "I think, Watson, that you have put on seven and a half pounds since I saw you."

"Seven!" I answered.

"Indeed, I should have thought a little more. Just a trifle more, I fancy, Watson. And in practice again, I observe. You did not tell me that you intended to go into harness."

"Then, how do you know?"

"I see it, I deduce it. How do I know that you have been getting yourself very wet lately, and that you have a most clumsy and careless servant girl?"

"My dear Holmes," said I, "this is too much. You would certainly have been burned, had you lived a few centuries ago. It is true that I had a country walk on Thursday and came home in a dreadful mess, but as I have changed my clothes I can't imagine how you deduce it. As to Mary Jane, she is incorrigible, and my wife has given her notice, but there, again, I fail to see how you work it out."
============================
According to your answer, is it equally grammatical and reasonable to say?:

-...if you lived a few centuries ago.

If I post Swan and you've read him twice, right thru, you could consider/could have considered that as a question.

If I take the time to type out a passage from Swan, but you've got the book, I was saying that you could have informed me of that. Then all I would have to do is refer you to the pertinent section.

Thnak you, JTT.

You mean the section on conditional sentences?

I can't recall now. I suppose I was referring to any old section, WB.

WB, you haven't been around much of late. Here's a real life example of what we talked about Re: conditionals.



http://able2know.org/topic/219243-6#post-5409378

Thank you, JTT. I must get this conditional problem solved, otherwise I shall rue it to the end of my days!

So far, you have mentioned only one situation when we can say 'if + didn't do, would have done something', instead of 'if + hadn't done, would have done something'; that is when we are doing ratiocination, but apart from this, in what situation can we say this

A: Did you see him?
B: No. I would have seen him if he had run by.

The meaning is, HE did not run by and B did not see him. But can I casually change HAD RUN to RAN?

We don't operate casually in language, WB. We choose elements of grammar to say what we mean. I would have fully understood the meaning you described even if you hadn't described it. That came from the grammatical structure you used.

The context in your scenario strongly indicates a need for "had run by" precisely because the speaker is focusing on the specific event. I'll suggest too that there is a past perfect element of importance that is similar in nature to the present perfect use that describes importance.

Now, how could a change to RAN occur.

A: Did you see him?
B: Nope, I didn't. But I would see him if he ran by.

Here, if we envision a scenario where B lives close to where "he" often/habitually runs by, B could certainly use RAN, as above. B has shifted the meaning to one of a new unlimited condition.

I'm not saying that we can't use the SIMPLE PAST FORM to describe past counterfactuals, but as always - CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT.