^^ You can actually make a good case for 2nd conditional since Sneaky is commenting on OP’s assumed present mastery of grammar and our current understanding of said grammar. You could also make a case for 3rd conditional given that OP’s statement was made at a fixed point in the past though the second half of the statement is contrary to present facts and not past facts.
In short, you can justify either version and your correction of Sneaky’s semantics is pedantic at best, as it’s not even wholly correct.
Somebody please explain.
^California’s going through a big drought right now
Seriously? if his grammar was better, people would get this.
If his grammar were better.
^^ You can actually make a good case for 2nd conditional since Sneaky is commenting on OP’s assumed present mastery of grammar and our current understanding of said grammar. You could also make a case for 3rd conditional given that OP’s statement was made at a fixed point in the past though the second half of the statement is contrary to present facts and not past facts.
In short, you can justify either version and your correction of Sneaky’s semantics is pedantic at best, as it’s not even wholly correct.
I got it, but it pissed me off because California’s drought affects the states around it more than it affects California.
Me: Yeah, but you still have to live in California.