0

I'm confused regarding uses of this idiom as clause For example

If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't have done that.

Clearly the speaker is talking about something that has already happened and he can do anything about it But couldn't the if clause be "If I had been you" since they're referring to a past condition?

Improve this question
4
  • Look at irrealis mood.
    – Robusto
    Commented Jun 30, 2020 at 13:43
  • 2
    According to the standard rules for English tenses, had been works just as well, if not better. But if I were you and If I were in your shoes are such common idioms that people usually use were here. See Google Ngrams.
    – Peter Shor
    Commented Jun 30, 2020 at 13:51
  • They are both correct but have different meanings. "If I were in your shoes, being over 70 and in the at-risk group, I wouldn't have done that." // "If I had been in your shoes, only just having passed the driving test and with one of the new E-type Jags, I wouldn't have done that." Different time references.
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Jun 30, 2020 at 14:16
  • Sentence doesn’t sound English to me. So I won’t try to justify it. “If I’d been in your shoes…” is everyday as well as correct English. You can’t use “if I were” in the past.
    – David
    Commented Nov 23, 2021 at 17:31

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
1

You use if you were in my shoes in questions

  • If you were in my shoes, what would you do?
  • If you were in my shoes, would you tell them to leave?

because they aren't in your shoes, but you want them to think about what they would need to do if they were.

However, you generally don't use that phrase in a statement where you provide your opinion; you'll want to swap the pronouns around for that

  • If I were in your shoes, I would tell them to leave.
  • If I were in your shoes, I don't know what I'd do.
Improve this answer
0

It is because the sentence is in the past subjunctive

Improve this answer
1
  • Does the same rule apply to " I were you " & " If i were in your place "
    – Archit
    Commented Jun 30, 2020 at 13:33
0

On the face of it, what students of classical languages call the rule of sequence of tenses has been broken. If the situation is, as it appears to be, that the person speaking is is referring to some action that is in the past, presumably either disapproving morally of it, or responding unsympathetically to an unfortunate result of the action or considering the the action unwise and likely to lead in the future to unfortunate consequences.

There is one circumstance in which you might be able to defend the use of this modal present. If, the remark follows an exchange where the speaker had said something like "What a rotten/stupid thing to do!", to which the aggrieved party complained "Well, it's easy for you to criticise me: you aren't in my shoes." Then the speaker might have retorted: "Even if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't have done that." Then s/he would be saying the equivalent of "Even if I were in your shoes, I would not have done what you did (i.e. I would not now be in the position you are in of having done it and facing the consequences).".

But I am stretching credulity. On any reasonable construction of the sentence and its probable context you are quite right, and your suggested version of the sentence is correct.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .