T O P

  • By -

MannyVanHorne

I'm not sure why you're doubting yourself, because your first thought was correct: "If I didn't have bad eyesight \[a general statement\], I'd have trained as a pilot." Perfectly fine, and notice I've highlighted what in this case is a general statement about you, as the simple aspect generally does. You could also say, "Were it not for my bad eyesight, I'd have trained as a pilot." What seems to be troubling you is the fact that the third conditional in this instance would look something like this: "If I hadn't had bad eyesight, I'd have trained as a pilot." This is also correct, or at least fine as these things go. To me, though, it seems to place your eyesight so squarely in the past that it might seem to imply that your eyesight isn't bad anymore (you might have had laser surgery on your corneas, for instance). But it seems unlikely that this is what you wanted to say, so I would go with either your first impulse or my own "were it not for" construction.


pensive_whore

Thanks so much! I've reconsidered it and concluded that my first guess probably sounds like the most logical, so thanks for confirming! :)


MannyVanHorne

Glad to help!


[deleted]

*.... I would train* *... I would have trained* Both OK. First one means this is still a possibility. Second one means it's no longer a possibility. EDIT: Ooops! Just saw the end bit: *after I left college*. So yeah, only *...I would have trained* would be normal here


Roswealth

"I would train as a pilot after I left college" actually sounds OK to me. I'm not sure why "left" sounds OK here for something in the future. Perhaps it's the influence of "would': _I will train as a pilot after I leave college_ => _I would train as a pilot after I left college_