질문 Given the following sentences , what is the difference between the conditional clauses in them ? If you saw a lion in a thick forest , what would you do ? If you were to see a lion in a thick forest , what would you do ? I ' m asking this simple thing because it ' s confusing me , since there is no such thing in my native language ( it ' s quite different from English ) . I can understand this one ( it may be a different question ) : If you had seen a lion in a thick forest , what would have you done ? but it ' s a bit confusing me . In my native language , it ' s always formulated as follows : If you would have seen a lion in a thick forest , what would have you done ? Does this make any difference in English ? 답변 There is no difference in meaning between your first two examples . However , the construction with were to see is more formal and slightly antiquated . However , there is a difference between your second two examples , namely that this one is not grammatically correct : * If you would have seen a lion in a thick forest , what would have you done ? In English we don ' t use the modal verb would in the if - clause of a condition of this sort . This condition must be phrased as in your other example : If you had seen a lion in a thick forest , what would have you done ? 출처 http : / / english . stackexchange . com / questions / 77887 / different - conditional - clauses - if - you - saw - if - you - were - to - see - if - you - had 저작 자 표시