Lately, I have been asking myself if this sentence was possible:
If it rained, I would stay at home.
What do you think?
Lately, I have been asking myself if this sentence was possible:
If it rained, I would stay at home.
What do you think?
Many linguists (often based outside the US) are quite happy that the past simple may (/should?) be used in such constructions, as this article from EF Education First Ltd. shows:
In [what some call] a Type 2 conditional sentence, the tense in the 'if' clause is the simple past, and the tense in the main clause is the present conditional or the present continuous conditional.
If clause (condition)...................Main clause (result)
If + simple past ..........................present conditional or present continuous conditional
If this thing happened................that thing would happen.
As in all conditional sentences, the order of the clauses is not fixed. You may have to rearrange the pronouns and adjust punctuation when you change the order of the clauses, but the meaning is identical.
EXAMPLES
If it rained, you would get wet.
You would get wet if it rained.
If you went to bed earlier you wouldn't be so tired.
You wouldn't be so tired if you went to bed earlier.
If she fell, she would hurt herself....
CaGEL (14.2.1) gives the example (and this is handy, as it uses the volitional 'would'):
I'd cook only if you cleaned up.
The 'if you were to' version sounds highfalutin', at least to many British ears.
I think this is possible. It sounds fine to my ear (American), and the tenses also seem to work.
"Rained" is the Imperfect Subjunctive verb and "would stay" is the following Conditional tense verb.