Dear all,

I'd like to ask if the two following sentences have the same meaning:

1. Unless you had seen me do it, you wouldn't have accused me.

2. You accused me but you didn't see me do it.

Many thanks.

Not AT ALL.

No. Thank you Jerry.

I just wanted to be assured. Because:

unless you had seen me do it = If you had not seen me do it = You saw me do it

you wouldn't have accused me = you did accuse me.

So, the sentence can be paraphrased like: You accused me because you saw me do it.

Is that right, Jerry?

Thanks

No, wrong again.

The subjunctive mood ("would/should," etc) creates an imaginary world of hypotheses, which cannot be replicated in the indicative.

You need a lot of serious thinking here.

My best suggestion:
Go to an English teacher who's a native of your language, and ask him to explain that to you in your own language.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Marius Hancu,

CalifJim, one of the Gurus at another site, says brilliantly:

----
A flight to Mars would take more than a year. (In an imaginary world where flights to Mars are ordinary events, a flight to Mars takes more than a year.) [This is a different usage from the usage in the first sentence.]

The weight of insects ... would be greater than the weight of .... (In an imaginary world where we are able to make such measurements, the weight of insects ... is greater than the weight of ....) [Same usage as in the second sentence.]

He would have reached New York. (In an imaginary world where certain conditions were met, he reached New York.)

I thought you would have finished this by now. (In an imaginary world - the imaginary world created by my thoughts - you have already finished this.)

My paraphrases are only approximate. There is no real definition of would. You just need to hear it and imitate it a lot before you start to understand how to use it. A clause with would is most often accompanied by an if clause that reveals more about the imaginary world we are in by expressing a condition.
------

Read his paraphrases again and again, until you get it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Marius Hancu,

>]If you had not seen me do it = You saw me do it

They are not fully equivalent, even if the first connotes in part the 2nd. It's a different mood, thus a different type of thinking, in each of them.

You create an hypothesis in the first, while the 2nd is plain/straighforward.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Marius Hancu,

Hold it, everybody!

Of COURSE there are definitions of 'would.' They exist in dictionaries and references, maybe all together, maybe in chunks, maybe separately.

And note this, everybody: Do NOT take it upon yourselves to instruct other members to read certain books, get teachers, get smarter, or anything like that.

Our purpose is to discuss the language.

This quote is dangerous: 'My paraphrases are only approximate. There is no real definition of would. You just need to hear it and imitate it a lot before you start to understand how to use it. A clause with would is most often accompanied by an if clause that reveals more about the imaginary world we are in by expressing a condition.'

Swan* alone lists nine separate, distinct uses for 'would.,' only one of which is conditional.

I think we should not sully our groups' postings with questionable postings from other forums.

1. Unless you had seen me do it, you wouldn't have accused me.

2. You accused me but you didn't see me do it.

No, the sentences are different.

• Sentence 1:

You actually did accuse me. The only reason you could accuse me was that you saw me do it.

You accused me because you saw me do it.

If you hadn’t seen me do it, you wouldn’t have accused me. Therefore, you must have seen me do it, and I must have done it.

• Sentence 2:

You accused me although you didn’t see me do it.

It doesn’t matter whether or not you saw me; you accused me anyway.

My paraphrase of 1:

1. Unless you had seen me do it, you wouldn't have accused me.

is different and based on what I quoted in the above:

In the imaginary world of potential/putative/hypothesized events, in which there was the possibility of seeing me or not, there was no chance for you to accuse me, without seeing me first. You saw me, thus you were able to accuse me and did so.

There are no potential/putative/hypothesized events/circumstances in 2, everything is plain/direct/straightforward/real.

Totally different approaches to describing the situation at hand.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Marius Hancu,

Thank you so much Rachel and Jerry for trying to help.

I've changed slightly my paraphrase for 1 in the above.

quote:

unless you had seen me do it = If you had not seen me do it = You saw me do it

you wouldn't have accused me = you did accuse me.

So, the sentence can be paraphrased like: You accused me because you saw me do it.

Is that right, Jerry?

I'm not going to add anything new, as the issue has been already clarified, but, in response to your question, I just wanted to say that this is correct.