+0
A forum member posted the following sentence, asking whether 'lost' or 'lose' should be used:

It is as if you had to give an interview after you lost/lose.

The answer given was 'lost' and the reason being that 'lost' goes with 'had.'

I don't understand neither why this was the answer nor the reasoning behind it.

'had' is the past subjunctive, referring to a hypothetical situation in the present time, whereas 'lost' is the past indicative, referring to a real situation in the past time.

Are verbs meant to match in form (i.e. past tense had; past tense lost) or in the time they express (i.e. had expresses present time; lose expresses present time)?

If that question is too hard to answer or decipher, here is a simpler question. Why do you think 'lost' should be used (instead of lose)?

Thanks
+0
I'd say that either verb will work, and that 'lost' is probably more common because we are used to regressing the dependent verb with the governing verb form.
Comments  
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
It is as if you had to give an interview after you lost/lose.

After reading the sentence again, I realise 'had' is referring to a hypothetical past situation. Therefore, lost/lose should be lost, correct?

Also, what if I want to say that 'having to give an interview' was a hypothetical present situation? Isn't the past subjunctive still used--though this gives the feeling that it is still past tense?

It is as if you had to give an interview after you lose.
I think the correct sentence would be this-
It is as if you had to give an interview after you lose.

The verb 'is' is agreed by 'lose'.

If I had to express this I would have used-
It is as if you had to give an interview after your loss.