[請益] It would be... if sb. + have p.p.

[aska1219 (bokuwamusic)]

想請教一下這段說明錢幣為什麼有突起的文章中的一個句子：

(大意就是為了防止有人把金幣刮下來賣，所以設計小突起，這樣被刮就很明顯。)

In the past, coins were made out of gold. Since these metals are valuable
on their own, people would often illegally clip off pieces of a coin. To
prevent it, coins were made with ridges. That way, it would be obvious if
someone had clipped off a piece of the coin.

我的理解是，最後一句的if someone had clipped off a piece of the coin是表示
條件的副詞子句(也就是條件子句)，用had + p.p是因為發生在過去，並對應主要子句
時間上的順序。(因為要滿足被刮掉的條件，才有可能很明顯。)

前文有提到常有人把金幣刮下來賣，所以似乎不符合假設語氣；如果屬於假設語氣，那
麼主要子句應改為it would have been obvious.


我想請教大家以上的理解有哪些錯誤的地方。謝謝!


--
He'll be your taxloss lover from Liverpool
Taxloss lover if the truth be told
Taxloss lover still lives in the War
Taxloss lover touching 74
Ah, come back to me
We want your money, taxloss

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) 
◆ From: 59.124.5.22
→ dunchee:"不符合假設語氣"-> Yes. 不是subjunctive. 那句的過去完
→ dunchee:成主要是對應於"it would be obvious"這(過去)時間點 --
→ dunchee:"clip off"這動作會先發生(一段時間後)其他人拿到這coin
→ dunchee:才會明顯察覺到coin的問題
→ aska1219:感謝dunchee！