Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Had they have gone to the same place, they would have talked to one another.

Is the sentence above acceptable? If not, then what is a proper way of saying this?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote -1 down vote accepted

I think what you are trying to say is related to what is known as third conditional, which is used for things that didnt happen in the past. Here are a couple of examples that might be of help:

If he hadn't gone to school, he wouldn't have had an accident. This means that he did go to school and that's why he had an accident. We are just adding a condition. Period.

It can also be said the following way:

Hadn't he gone to school, he wouldn't have had an accident. It means the same thing. Just a bit shorter.

share|improve this answer
    
I don't think "Hadn't he gone to school" works as a dependent clause. –  Rebecca Dec 16 '13 at 4:20
    
@rebecca I think it does –  Noah Dec 16 '13 at 4:36
    
@Rebecca No, it doesn't. Prove me wrong:) –  Noah Jan 13 at 6:52
    
I can't prove it. But I've also never come across that construction in either spoken or formal American English. To my ear, "Hadn't he gone to school?" stands as an independent clause, like "Didn't he go to school?" If I wanted to subordinate it, I'd say, "If he hadn't gone to school" or "Had he not gone to school." But if the latter works, your construction should work too, I suppose. I just don't think it does. As a subordinate clause, "Hadn't he gone to school" seems arcane. But "to my ear" and "I don't think" and "seems" are no argument and no proof. –  Rebecca Jan 15 at 19:03

The two simplest alternatives to your current sentence are likely: "Had they gone…" and "If they had gone…", both of which are proper English and retain what I believe is your intended meaning.

share|improve this answer
    
I thought as much. Thank you. I take it "had they have" is not acceptable at all, then, or is it just superfluous (if you will), considering that there are simpler forms of this structure - such as the ones you pointed out? –  Yusuf Dec 15 '13 at 2:48
    
I'm not necessarily certain that the grammar of the original sentence is technically improper, though it certainly sounds odd to my ear. I would recommend "If they had gone to the same place, they would have talked to one another." assuming you are asserting that IF they had (in the past) been at the same place (and likely referencing a particular place) then they would, inevitably, have spoken with one another. –  Zyniker Dec 15 '13 at 4:28

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.