Hello, Dave
![Smile [:)]](/emoticons/emotion-1.gif)
would + base form of verb = simple conditional
would + have + past participle = perfect conditional
I don't know those by any other names, but of course it is probable that there may be authors who may give those different names.
In my mother tongue, the "conditional" used to be considered a "mood" some time ago, but later on the two tenses were made part of the "indicative" mood. Long ago, it was also called "modo potencial" -which is a name I still like- because the two forms at the beginning of this post (rather, their Spanish equivalents) were/are used to refer to some the "potentiality" of the occurrence of a certain event.
In this topic in particular, there is no difference between Spanish and English. In English, both tenses are also used to refer to the "potentiality" of a certain event, state or action.
The conditionals (the verb forms, not the 3 types of conditional sentences) are different from the subjuntive both in form and in meaning. It is true, however, that they are used "together" in certain constructions such as conditional sentences Types II and III:
"If she
did not
love you, she
would not
have married you."
"She
would have come if you
had asked her."
Also your example:
"If I
were you I
would be happy to dance with him."
All three sentences contain a verb in the "subjunctive" mood (in the if-clause), and a "conditional".
In my examples, the subjunctive is "unmarked": you see the forms we use for the simple past and the past perfect. In your example, the subjunctive is "marked" by the use of "were" (instead of "was") for the first person singular.
So, the subjunctive mood and the conditional may occur together, but also, they may not:
There is only the subjunctive in "I wish you were here".
The "perfect infinitive" does not take "would". Here are a few examples:
"I am glad
to have been of help."
"We were supposed
to have met at the cinema at 7."
"She should
have called earlier."
"She can't
have rung Harry because the phone was out of order."
There is a difference between these two sentences, other than the difference in meaning:
1. "She
would have told you the truth."
2. "She
should have told you the truth."
In #1, the "perfect conditional" is used; in #2, should + the perfect infinitive. Even when both forms look pretty much alike, they are different.
In English, I have learned, you sometimes use the same constructions to convey different meanings. That happens, for example, with the subjunctive.
In "I had enough money, so I bought a new house" and "If I had enough money I'd buy a new house",
had is used differently. In #1 it is the simple past of the verb to have both in form and meaning. In #2, even when the form is the same as that of the simple past, the meaning is not, and it is used for want of a form that belongs to the subjunctive mood. That's why this case is called "unmarked" subjunctive; there is nothing in the verb form itself that will tell you it is not to be understood as the simple past. The difference is provided by the context.
In your example:
"If you had been there you would have been happy to dance with him"
"had been" is used as unmarked subjunctive, and "would have been" is a perfect conditional, not a perfect infinitive. Compare your sentence to the following:
"If I were you, I would be happy
to have danced with him", in which the perfect infinitive is used (this sentence is different from yours in meaning).
Sometimes I'm a bit long-winded. Please tell me if this is what you asked and, if it is, let me know if the explanation is clear enough.
Regards,
Miriam