Translation:If we were in the desert, would it have rained?
Question: Why is this incorrect?: "If we would be in the dessert, would it have rained?"
"If we would be..." just doesn't sound right to my "American English" ear. It sort of makes sense, but I have to replace the "would be" with "were" to make it make sense in my head.
Good question. I don't know, really. The only thing I can think of is that the English translation does not like to have two "would"s in the sentence. But other than that, it seems a more straightforward translation to the Dutch sentence, actually.
I'm wondering the same. It sounds very formal, but it is correct English and conveys the meaning of the Dutch sentence accurately.
Is " Would it have rained if we had been in the desert? ---This does not include the TWO "woulds" and sounds plausible while keeping the meaning correct....therefore can this be counted as correct?
Can someone please explain me what does this sentence mean? Particularly the part "would have it rained" .. Thank you
Don't forget Dutch is a language and it has its own grammatical rules.. so forget about literal translations.
There are three ways to say "If we were in the desert, would it have rained?" in Dutch:
Als we in de woestijn waren, zou het hebben geregend?.
Als we in de woestijn zouden zijn, zou het hebben gereend?.
Als we in woestijn waren, had het geregend?.
The second one is less common, especially in spoken Dutch.
The first part is a supposition: "If we were in the desert..." The second part is a statement that, where the person is now (not in a desert), it is raining. The questioner is wondering would it have been raining like this IF they had been in a desert. Helpful?