I am confused about which of the two is grammatically correct:
- Were you seen by him, he would have been surprised.
- Were you be seen by him, he would have been surprised.
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this communityI am confused about which of the two is grammatically correct:
- Were you seen by him, he would have been surprised.
- Were you be seen by him, he would have been surprised.
Neither is grammatical. It should be
Had you been seen by him, he would have been surprised.
The second is obviously wrong, since it has an extra "be" in it which shouldn't be there. But the first also uses the wrong tense.
Let's analyze this by untangling the passive (which makes it very confusing). First, removing the inversion, you get "you were seen by him". The active voice construction corresponding to "you were seen by him" is "he saw you". So, taking the first clause out of the passive, you get
*If he saw you, he would have been surprised.
But these tenses don't agree. It should be
If he had seen you, he would have been surprised.
Putting this back in the passive, and putting back the inversion, the correct phrasing is: "Had you been seen by him, he would have been surprised."
The first is okay. The second is wrong. "Be" serves no purpose in the sentence.
Better still would be, "If he had seen you ...", as this avoids the odd shift from passive voice to active voice.
The first. Also, "Had you been seen by him...". I think "Were" includes the verb "to be" so adding "be" is unnecessary and awkward.
I suppose first one is correct, "Were you seen by him, he would have been surprised."
As Charles said, adding "be" is unnecessary and awkward.
"Were" is more correct because, You are not seen more probably. Usage of 'were' For example,
"If I were famous, I would help the poor." (It is sure that I am not famous)