The thing I don't understand about mixed conditionals is this example from my book:
A. “If Anna were here, she would've known what to do.” (but Anna's not here, so she can't help us.)
It says before that that mixed conditionals, where there is this type: Past simple – would + have + past participle, usage is: unreal present situations, usually imaginary permanent states, which could have had some consequences in the past.
In my language, you cannot possibly have some present situation that had / can have consequences in the past. How is this possible?
Can someone simplify the usage?
I have these questions:
B. If you (wear) a beard all the time, they (not recognize) you without it.
I believe it should sound like this:
If you wore a beard all the time, they wouldn't have recognized you without it.
Just because it sounds natural, but not because it might be correct. Can someone explain the usage listed above (in B)? What I'm thinking is: if you wore a beard—that's imaginary, not real now—they wouldn't have recognized you without it; meaning that in the past it could've had some consequences if you did and were like this like you are today. (Which you aren't actually.)
C. If the Earth (stop), everything (be) changed in the world.
I believe that this is the answer:
If the Earth had stopped, everything would be changed in the world.
but why wouldn't it be this?:
If the Earth stopped, everything would have been changed.?
If it stopped, it's not moving, then this could've caused changes in the past?
D. She (win) the beauty pageant if she (wear) different clothes.
This is my answer:
She would win the beauty pageant if she had worn different clothes.
Because here we have some past event—wearing different clothes—which causes the victory … and she would've just won it – but she didn't, because she hadn't worn different clothes. They are probably talking about it after but near the end of that competition.
Were these right explanations? If someone could, please summarize the usage of these 2 mixed conditionals (past simple – would + perfect infinitive, and past perfect – would + infinitive).
EDIT: I found another sentence I'm not sure about – it says I should comment on it (in mixed conditionals, only the 2 types I listed above):
E. They are injured because they were driving very quickly.
I'd say here:
If they hadn't driven (or maybe "been driving") very quickly, they wouldn't be injured.
Because it's a past event… but when I think about it, even though it's obviously not a "permanent state", but you could say:
If they didn't drive very quickly, they wouldn't have been injured.
I really can't tell the difference when I look at the usage box in my book.
Best Answer
Compare
(A) "If Anna was here, she would've known what to do."
(B) "If Anna had been here, she would've known what to do."
In (A), the speakers are currently considering what to do and lamenting that Anna isn't with them right now, because she would have been able to help them.
In (B), the speakers are discussing a past situation (we don't know how recent) where Anna's absence left them with no solution. The opportunity to do the right thing has now passed.
I think if you see the difference between the two, that will go a long way to helping you with similar constructs.
"If you (wear) a beard all the time, they (not recognize) you without it."
All the below are possible:
(A) If you wore a beard all the time, they would not recognize you without it.
(B) If you had worn a beard all the time, they would not have recognized you without it.
(C) If you were to wear a beard all the time, they would not recognize you without it.
(A) Can be used in a past sense, in a kind of confirmatory way: Given that you always wore a beard, then of course they wouldn't recognise you without it. But it can also be a suggestion for the future: if>then. (B) In the past period referred to, he wasn't in the habit of wearing a beard, and therefore had no chance to pass unrecognised by removing it.
(C) More specific than the second sense of (A). Making a hypothetical suggestion concerning a group of people currently unknown; implying that at the moment he doesn't wear a beard all the time (or at all).