2

Si le but de ces gens était d’empêcher leur mariage coûte que coûte, ça fait bien longtemps déjà que le couple devrait se trouver six pieds sous terre...

In describing this hypothetical situation, I wonder why "fait" does not need to take the form of Conditionnel Présent "ferait" – with only "devrait" in the subordinate clause being in Conditionnel.

= "If they really wanted to sabotage their marriage, the couple would have been six feet under for a long time now..."

3

You're overlooking (clearly because there's only two verbs in the English sentence) the fact the amount of elapsed time is the only part of the French sentence which is not a supposition of some sort.

  • To enlight the point, here is a similar example: "Si le but de ces gens était d’empêcher leur mariage coûte que coûte, il est certain que le couple devrait se trouver six pieds sous terre" but not "il serait certain" because certainty is above/not related to the condition itself. – lemon Sep 12 '17 at 17:05
  • Hi. Is it incorrect to use the past conditional here? : "... ça fait bien longtemps déjà que le couple se serait trouvé six pieds sous terre..." Also to @lemon – Con-gras-tue-les-chiens Sep 13 '17 at 1:16
  • @Alone-zee, grammatically it is correct but semantically it is probably not here: "... se serait trouvé (une ou plusieur fois, ponctuellement)..." and "... se trouverait (toujours, depuis, encore)..." (same for "devrait se trouver") – lemon Sep 13 '17 at 6:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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