I am teaching English in Korea. In my textbook, there is a biography of Bethany Hamilton who lost one of her arms in a shark attack. Here is the problem.
The following is an interview with Bethany.
Reporter 1: Are you upset you didn't win today?
Bethany: I didn't come to win. I came to surf.
Reporter 2: If you could go back to that day, would you still have gone surfing?
Bethany: I wouldn't change what happened to me, because then I wouldn't have this chance in front of all of you ― this chance to embrace more people than I ever could have with two arms.
I am confused because of the very last part since I have to translate the exact meaning of the phrase to my students in Korean.
1) than I ever had embraced when I had two arms
2) than I ever could have embraced if I still had two arms
Which is more correct translation from natives' point of view?
Best Answer
No. 2 is correct. Don't listen to some of these people above; it is the subjunctive mood as "could" is the past subjunctive modal form of "can" in this instance. Yes, in Modern English, most teachers in English-speaking countries call this the conditional mood or teach it as the conditional and they despise the term "subjunctive" because they want to rid English of the subjunctive, but "could" or "would" or "should" or "might" in the apodosis of any conditional statement wherein a past subjunctive verb is used in the protasis (in your case, "had" in "if I still had two arms") is technically a subjunctive form; we just don't call it that anymore. The word "subjunctive" is a big "no-no" in English these days as I've stated above because native speakers want it eviscerated from the language.