+0
Hello,

1. It was hot. The match was cancelled.

I have to write it as

2. Had it not been hot, the match would not have been cancelled.

I want to know the rule for making such conversion.
1 2
Comments  
Hello Hanuman

If it had not been hot, the match would have not been cancelled.
= Had it not been hot, the match would have not been cancelled.

It is called "conditional (subject-verb) inversion". You can make the construct by the procedures as follows:
0.) original : If it had not been hot
1.) take out "if" : It <had> not been hot
2.) raise the finite verb to the head : <Had> it not been hot

Other examples,
[1] If she had taken her medicine, she might be better now.
Had she taken her medicine, she might be better now.
[2] If you should wish to attend class, please be on time.
Should you wish to attend class, please be on time.
[3] If she were to be on time, we might take the bus at 8 p.m.
Were she to be on time, we might take the bus at 8 p.m.

What we have to remind is we can use this construct only for counter-factual conditions.
[4] If it rains tomorrow, I'll stay home.
(x) Rains it tomorrow, I'll stay home.

paco
How to make that conversion -----

Determine which of the two sentences is the cause (or situation) and which is the result; place the cause first.

Cause, situation: It was hot. Result: The match was cancelled.

Write the cause in the "had" tense. Write the result in the "would have" tense.

It had been hot. The match would have been cancelled.

Negate both. (If already negative, remove the negation.)

It had not been hot. The match would not have been cancelled.

Invert the order of the subject and "had" in the first sentence and combine sentences.

Had it not been hot, the match would not have been cancelled.
__________

Here's another:

I did not take my umbrella. It did not rain.
Cause or situation: It did not rain. Result: I did not take my umbrella.
It had not rained. I would not have taken my umbrella.
It had rained. I would have taken my umbrella.
Had it rained, I would have taken my umbrella.


CJ
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Hello Sir (Mr.CJ)

It was once again a fantastic explanation.

Thanks a lot Mr. Pacco and you.
Hello Sir (Mr.CJ),

One more help I need.

1. I am not rich. I am unable to pay my school fee.

Had I been rich, I would have payed my school fee.

Is the converson correct?
Hello,

Could anybody check it?
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Hanuman_2000Hello Sir (Mr.CJ),

One more help I need.

1. I am not rich. I am unable to pay my school fee.

Had I been rich, I would have payed my school fee.

Is the converson correct?

1. I am not rich. I am unable to pay the tuition.
2. Were I rich enough, I could pay the tuition.

paco
hanuman,

Following the transformation rules I gave earlier, the result would be:

Had I been rich, I would not have been unable to pay my school fee.

However, not and unable creates too many negatives to be easily understood, and I would modify not unable to able, giving:

Had I been rich, I would have been able to pay my school fee.

You may go one step further, modifying would have been able to pay to could have paid.

Had I been rich, I could have paid my school fee.

CJ
CalifJimhanuman,

Following the transformation rules I gave earlier, the result would be:

Had I been rich, I would not have been unable to pay my school fee.

However, not and unable creates too many negatives to be easily understood, and I would modify not unable to able, giving:

Had I been rich, I would have been able to pay my school fee.

You may go one step further, modifying would have been able to pay to could have paid.

Had I been rich, I could have paid my school fee.

CJ

CJ,

I think your sentence corresponds to "I was not rich. I was unable to pay my school fee", not "I am not rich. I am unable to pay my school fee". Am I wrong?

paco
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Show more