+0
I am a native English speaker, and I just wrote a sentence containing

would not have had it been

This sounds just fine to my ear, but I wonder:
  1. Is this proper?
  2. Is this all a conjugation of "to be", as it seems to me?
  3. What is the formal grammatical term for this?
This is a combination of modals, conditionals, and past participles that I am able to understand but unable to describe or name.

Thank you!
1 2
Comments  
Hi,

What was the complete sentence, please?

Clive
Give us the whole sentence. It's just as impossible to say whether that is correct as to say whether a sentence is correct that contains "will they" or "someone having".

I may be able to construct a sentence that uses that sequence of words correctly, but that doesn't mean that you have done so.

CJ
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Fair enough. What I was asking is would it be possible for the construction to be correct, but yes, a whole sentence is better.

"[A soul song sung by a white woman was] played on rock radio, which it probably would not have had it been a soul song performed by a heavy-set black woman."

This is certainly more information -- adding the "performed" may change the answer.
My humble contribution: after "which," remove "it." "Which" is a relative pronoun referring to the whole sentence "A soul ...rock radio." It means "which fact," i e., the fact that "A soul ...on rock radio." Thus, you get "A soul song ...rock radio, which probably would not have occurred, had it been a soul ...woman." "Had it been" is elegant for "If it had been."
joshuamcgee"[A soul song sung by a white woman was] played on rock radio, which it probably would not have had it been a soul song performed by a heavy-set black woman."
Geez, if it hadn't been for the anonymous post just before mine, I wouldn't have understood that sentence at all (I'm not a native speaker though).
I guess it's because it's written without any commas in between.

...which probably wouldn't have, had it been...

...which probably wouldn't have played it if it had been... (I personally like this "simple" version Emotion: stick out tongue)
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
I understand that this sentence is difficult, possibly even tortured. Were I to publish it, I would probably rewrite it to something like:

"[A soul song sung by a white woman was] played on rock radio. I believe rock radio would not have played it if the song had been performed by a heavy-set black woman."

In deference to the anonymous respondent, I will remove the which.

"[A soul song sung by a white woman was] played on rock radio. It probably would not have had it been a soul song performed by a heavy-set black woman."

I'm not writing for composition advice, but I do appreciate it. I am asking whether (strictly formally, and strictly the "would not have had it been" portion in an otherwise-unflawed sentence) the construction is syntactically flawed, and, if not, can you give this native speaker the name of the conjugation/mood being used? The answer would sound something like "conditional past perfect", but that (of course) is not the right answer.

A thank you in advance, and if formal grammar questions are beyond the scope of this board, no problem there, and I will thank you and move back to lurking. Emotion: smile
You do need a comma between "have" and "had." The word sequence itself is okay.
joshuamcgee What I was asking is would it be possible for the construction to be correct, but yes, a whole sentence is better.
It would be possible for that sequence of words to be correct. Yes. Calling that sequence "a construction" confused the issue, I think, because it's really two constituents of two separate clauses. That's why a comma is needed for clarity.

... it probably would not have, had it been ...

It is a "third conditional", if you want the technical name. And the underlying if clause if it had been is rephrased with subject-verb inversion as had it been.

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