Breakdown of Da saveznik nije stigao, mi bismo bili promijenili tijek povijesti.
biti
to be (sam, si, je)
mi
we
ne
no, not
stići
to arrive
Questions & Answers about Da saveznik nije stigao, mi bismo bili promijenili tijek povijesti.
How is the past conditional mi bismo bili promijenili formed in this sentence?
It expresses an unrealized action in the past ("would have changed") and requires three parts: the conditional auxiliary bismo (from biti), the past participle bili (also from biti), and the past participle of the main verb promijenili. Because the subject is the plural mi (we), both participles take the masculine/mixed plural -li ending.
Is the three-word structure bismo bili promijenili commonly used in everyday conversation?
Not really. In spoken and casual Croatian, people almost always use the standard present conditional (mi bismo promijenili) for both "we would change" and "we would have changed". The strict past conditional shown here is quite formal and mostly reserved for literature or careful writing to strongly emphasize that the window of opportunity is forever closed.
Why does this sentence use da for "if" instead of ako?
We use da because this is an unreal (counterfactual) condition. The ally did arrive, so the condition "if the ally had not arrived" is contrary to reality. Ako is reserved for real, possible conditions (like "If the ally arrives tomorrow..."). When using da for past counterfactuals, it is always followed by the standard perfect tense, which here is nije stigao.
What case is povijesti and why does it end in ?