'If I would have met' vs 'If I had met'

[Thito]

Dear teachers

Please clarify me which is right:

1. 'If I would have met I would have spoken to them'

2. 'If I had met I would have spoken to them'

Many thanks
Thito

[Yankee]

Hi Thito

This sentence would be grammatically correct:

If I had met them, I would have spoken to them.

[Pamela]

The second, Thito.
If I had met them I would have spoken to them.It's a mixed conditional sentence. It means that I don't meet them that's why I didn't speak to them.

[Yankee]

Hi Pamela

Actually, that's a classic type 3 conditional:

IF + had +past participle , would + have + past participle

The reality in the past was this:
I didn't talk to them because I didn't meet (see) them.
.

[Nnkk]

Because it is an unreal conditional (as yankee said) the "if clause" doesn't carry would. Would goes in the main clause. The past tense in this case implies the unreal situation.

[Pamela]

[Yankee]

Hi Pamela

I suspected that you might have misread the sentence because I know that you know conditionals.

By the way, you might be interested to know that the poster's first sentence (with 'them' added to it) would actually be a fairly typical native speaker error (in AmE).

[Lost_Soul]

[Yankee]

But the original sentence does read had met, LS. That was the point: I think Pamela was simply explaining that she misread the sentence as a mixed conditional, which would naturally be "inconsistent" with the "standard" types of if-sentences. Her original interpretation (a mixed conditional using only 'met') might be possible in just the right context. That's what makes mixed conditionals tough to explain, though. The context usually has to be described in some detail in order to justify and/or understand the mix.

For the record, I think everybody now agrees that Thito's second sentence (with the word 'them' added) is grammatically correct.

'If I had met them, I would have spoken to them.'