Is this grammatically correct? "If it wouldn't have been for the air to breathe, I would not be living."?

Question

Is this grammatically correct? "If it wouldn't have been for the air to breathe, I would not be living."?

Answer 1

"If it wouldn't have been for the air to breathe, I would not be living."

This makes grammatical sense; however, you make want to do this:

"If it would not have been for the air to breathe, I would not be living."

I substituted 'would not' just to keep it consistent (you used "would not" in the main clause). Tense is correct (which is in conditional-future). The complex sentence contains a subordinating clause with a main clause correctly linked; I find nothing wrong.

Answer 2

If it hadn't been for the breathable air, I would not be alive.

Answer 3

Change it still further to get a more literate appearance :

"Had it not been for the air to breathe, I would have died" or possibly "would have been unable to live" depending on the emphasis.

(i.e. depends on whether you're describing life on earth in terms of your own example, or really having been trapped in an air pocket under a collapsed building.)

Good question - I can see you're thinking about language and that you realise that some ways of speaking are more or less elegant than others.

Answer 4

No.  This is correct:  "If I didn't have the air to breathe, I would not be living (or alive)" or "If it weren't for the air I breathe, I wouldn't be living (or alive)".

Answer 5

No.  Try this: "If not for the air I breathe, I would not be living."