+0

I know it's a little wordy, but is the following sentence grammatically correct?

"If we continued going up the mountain, our problem would have been that we would have been too tired."

If I wanted to avoid the repetition of "would have been", would the following be an acceptable substitute, or has changing "would have been" to "were" changed the meaning?

"If we continued going up the mountain, our problem would have been that we were too tired."

+0
JJDouglasIf we had continued going up the mountain, our problem would have been that we would have been too tired.

OK as shown.

JJDouglasIf we had continued going up the mountain, our problem would have been that we were too tired.

Also OK as shown.

Also,

If we had continued (going) up the mountain, we would have gotten too tired.

CJ

Comments  
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.

Thank you. So is there no slight change in meaning when I use "were" instead of "would have been"? Do the two sentences mean exactly the same thing?

JJDouglas

Thank you. So is there no slight change in meaning when I use "were" instead of "would have been"? Do the two sentences mean exactly the same thing?

Not exactly the same thing, but it's quite difficult to characterize the difference. The first version with the repetition sounds like it's closer to the desired meaning, and the second version sounds a little better stylistically without deviating a lot from the meaning in the first.

Frankly, a good writer would revise the whole sentence, because neither version is great, and that's why I gave you the "also" option in my previous post. Why say that being too tired to climb higher is a problem? The mention that it's a problem seems too obvious to be included.

CJ