passive past
How would you translate a complex structure such as: Had it not been for you, I would have not been selected ?
Many thanks
3 Answers
Hi Aliaj. This sentence has one independent clause and one dependent clause. I think it’s easier to think of it as an “If/would sentence” than the fact that one of the clauses is in the past perfect tense and the passive voice.
While your sentence makes perfect sense because, in English, we sometimes omit the word if or use another word to mean if, it is easier to rephrase it so that it has the word if. It is easier to start from this point because you’ll need the if part in Spanish. (As you may know, the word sí with an accent mark means yes; and the word si without an accent mark means if.)
So: If it had not been for you, I would not have been selected.
Here, we have one if clause and one would clause.
In Spanish, the verb (or part of it) in the if clause is in the imperfect subjunctive and the verb (or part of it) in the would clause is in the conditional tense.
For instance:
If I were rich, I would buy a new house. ? (Notice the past subjunctive “were” here, even though the subject is singular. “If I was . . .” is bad grammar.)
Si yo fuera rico, compraría una nueva casa.
In the if clause, I’m taking a form of to be, and I’m using ser, not estar. So ser in the first-person singular imperfect subjunctive = fuera.
In the would clause, I put the word for buy, which is comprar, in the conditional, so would buy becomes compraría.
It is more difficult, though, when you have verbal phrases such as had (not) been and would (not) have been.
In your sentence:
If it had not been for you, I would not have been selected,
You need to be careful about whether you’re going to translate the word been as estado or sido, or the past participles of estar and ser, respectively. Since we’re not talking about location or a temporary condition here, but more of a permanent status, I will use sido instead of estado in both clauses.
Note that I’m not translating a form of to be (like been) to fuera, as was the case in the earlier, easier sentence with the word were becoming fuera. Since I have the pattern (in English) of: auxiliary verb(s) + past participle in both clauses, the auxiliary verb in the verbal phrase is the part that goes into the past subjunctive (in the if clause) or the conditional (in the would clause).
Also, remember that to have as a main verb = tener. But here, had is an auxiliary verb, so I’m not using a form of tener; but rather, haber. To have as an auxiliary verb = haber.
Third-person singular of haber in the imperfect subjunctive = hubiera. (Or you can look up the past perfect [pluperfect] subjunctive of ser, which shows hubiera sido.)
First-person singular of haber in the conditional = habría. (Or you can look up the conditional perfect of ser, which shows habría sido.)
Also, I’m including the word yo in the would clause to clarify that it’s first-person singular, because habría sido can also be third-person singular. (If this is redundant due to context, you can omit the word yo.)
So, If it had not been for you, I would not have been selected =
You familiar: Si no hubiera sido por ti, yo no habría sido seleccionado.
You formal: Si no hubiera sido por Ud., yo no habría sido seleccionado.
Escogido and elegido are fine. But I think that seleccionado is a little bit better when referring to a person or a teammate who has been selected.
How about .....
Si no hubiera sido por ti (or usted)
or ....
De no haber sido por ti (usted) no me habrían elegido
or
(yo) no habría sido elegido.
Hi and welcome to the forum!
My attempt:
De no ser por ti, yo no hubiera sido escogido.
