Thanks, I think I understand; is this right: it is important to note =main clause OK. that just because the main clause comprises the modal verb 'would,' it doesn't mean the if clause is hypothetical and requires the

Thanks, I think I understand; is this right: it is important to note =main clause that just because the main clause comprises the modal verb 'would,' it doesn't mean the if clause is hypothetical and requires the

"It is important to note that just because the main clause comprises the modal verb 'would,' it doesn't mean the if clause is hypothetical and requires the subjunctive mood." I don't think this sentence should

Hi Personally, I wouldn't fret too much about the different 'types' of conditional. The important thing is to understand how the were- subjunctive (or 'past' subjunctive) functions when used in an if- conditional clause.

Who would've thought (that) it be possible? Is this subjunctive or simply the base form of the verb to be following the omitted modal verb 'would'? The grammar isn't quite right. Not thought that it be . The verb thought

In just one thread, I now feel relatively confident with my understanding of both the subjunctive and conditional. Who would've thought (that) it be possible? Is this subjunctive or simply the base form of the verb to be

Could in the main clause is probably a conditional mood, isn't it? Yes. But could in the following sentence is a subjunctive, isn't it? Не would l ent lend you the book if you could call for it . It's in a subjunctive context, but I