se + estus + Participle in -inta
If I Had Known
Estus plus -inta looks back at something that did not happen.
How It Works
| Time | Example |
|---|---|
| now or in general | Se mi scius, mi venus. (If I knew, I would come.) |
| the past that did not happen | Se mi estus sciinta, mi estus veninta. (If I had known, I would have come.) |
The ending -us shows that something is only imagined. It does not show the time. To make it clear that the imagined thing belongs to the past, many speakers use estus with an -inta participle: estus sciinta (would have known), estus veninta (would have come).
Both halves of the sentence can use this form. Often a word such as hieraŭ already shows the time, and then the short form is enough: Mi vizitus vin hieraŭ, se mi scius, ke vi estas hejme.
After estus comes a participle, never a verb with -is: estus sciinta, not estus sciis.
Examples (5)
- Se mi estus sciinta, ke vi estas en Parizo, mi estus vizitinta vin.
If I had known that you were in Paris, I would have visited you.
Both halves use estus plus -inta.
- Se Ana estus havinta pli da tempo, ŝi estus restinta ĝis la fino de la festo.
If Ana had had more time, she would have stayed until the end of the party.
Havinta and restinta show the imagined past.
- Ni estus ĝuintaj la ekskurson, se ne estus pluvinta.
We would have enjoyed the trip if it had not rained.
The participle -inta agrees with ni, so it has -j.
- Kenji ne estus maltrafinta la trajnon, se li estus ekirinta pli frue.
Kenji would not have missed the train if he had set out earlier.
Ne goes before estus, the word it denies.
- Ŝi estus helpinta vin, se vi estus demandinta.
She would have helped you if you had asked.
Estus helpinta tells what did not happen.
Common Mistakes
Using a past ending after estus.
Se mi estus sciis, mi estus venis.Se mi estus sciinta, mi estus veninta.Estus is followed by a participle, not by a verb with -is. The participle -inta shows the past: sciinta, veninta.
How It Connects
Learn This First
The past unreal uses estus plus -inta.