60829
I have recently been trying to learn how to translate 2nd and 3rd conditional
sentences accurately into Japanese, but didn't found a clear, detailed answer.
By gathering different bits, it seems that 3rd conditional could be formed as
in the following example:

> If I had had money, I would have bought food.  
> もし金が有っていたら、食べ物を買っていたでしょう。

Is this sentence correct? Also, if I understood correctly, the use of 〜ていた
forms is to emphasize the fact the condition and potential result would have
taken place in the past. Would the sentence still have the same meaning if the
initial もし was not included?

What about if the result would have been a negative action? Is the following
correct?

> If I had eaten, I wouldn't have been hungry.  
> 食べていたら、お腹が空いていなかったでしょう。

What about the 2nd conditional? How would the following be translated?

> If I had money, I would build a house.

Would the following be correct?

> 金が有っていたら、家を買うでしょう。

Finally, would the translations still be correct, but less formal, by
replacing the final 〜でしょう by 〜だろう ?

Thanks a lot!
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-12T18:47:10.537
60820
2020-08-16T01:20:54.103
2018-08-12T23:32:45.487
22352
30950
question
conditionals
English 2nd and 3rd conditional in Japanese
Let me start with the simpler one of the two - the second conditioal
(仮定法過去{かていほうかこ}). Not sure why you would start with the third
(仮定法過去完了{かていほうかこかんりょう}), which is more complex.

Second Conditional:

> "If I **had** money, I **would build** a house."

Your translation:

> 「金{かね}が有{あ}っていたら、家{いえ}を買{か}うでしょう。」_

which is kind of close but not correct. Only the last half (main clause) is
grammatical.

In Japanese, we never say 「有っていたら」 regardless of the meaning and/or context.
_**That form simply does not exist**_.

The correct form is 「あったら」 or 「あれば」. The vast majority of us native speakers
would write this using all kana instead of using the kanji 「有」. Also correct
would be to use the different verb 「持{も}つ」 and say 「持っていたら」 or 「持っていれば」.

(Additionally, it is far more natural-sounding to say 「お金{かね}」 than 「金」.
Likewise, we say 「お茶」 for "tea" and rarely ever 「茶」.)

Putting it all together, a correct and natural-sounding translation would be:

> 「（もし）お金が（あったら or あれば）、家を買う（だろう or でしょう）。」

Using 「建{た}てる」 instead of 「買う」 would make it more true to your English
original which uses the verb "to build" rather than "to buy".

In fact, let us form another second conditional sentence using 「持つ」 and 「建てる」.
That would be:

> 「（もし）お金 **を** 持って（いたら or いれば）、家を建てる（だろう or でしょう）。」

Moving on to the third conditional..

> "If I **had had** money, I **would have bought** food."

And your TL reads:

> 「もし金が有っていたら、食べ物を買っていたでしょう。」

Again, the second half is perfect. The ony mistake in the first is「有っていたら」,
which makes no sense as I mentioned before. So, it looks pretty good overall.

The correct and natural-sounding sentences are:

> 「もしお金を **持っていた** ら、食べ物を **買っていた** （でしょう or だろう）。」
>
> 「もしお金が **あったら** 、食べ物を **買っていた** （でしょう or だろう）。」

Why use 「お金があったら」 for both second and third conditionals, you wonder. That is
simply because the form 「お金があっていたら」 does not exist in the language.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-13T00:43:25.630
60829
2018-08-13T00:43:25.630
2020-06-17T08:18:27.500
-1
60820
answer
If I had money, I would build a house. お金があったら家を建てる［のに／けど］…。 The のに… or けど…
can indicate the unreal condition, “you don’t have money.”
<https://youtu.be/_3DqKPZZ_34> 12:25

お金があったら家を建てる［だろう／でしょう」can be used when talking about your future plan, “I will
build a house if I have money.”
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-16T01:20:54.103
80166
2020-08-16T01:20:54.103
40018
60820
answer