Questions & Answers about No puedes imaginar lo trágico que iba a ser el desastre.
Why do we use the imperfect iba here instead of the preterite fue?
Using the imperfect of ir (which is iba) plus a plus an infinitive is the standard way to express what was going to happen in the past. It sets the scene of a developing expectation, which perfectly fits an unfulfilled outcome or an avoided disaster. If we used the preterite fue, it would imply a completed, factual event rather than a past expectation of the future.
Why is it lo trágico que instead of something like cómo trágico to say "how tragic"?
Could I use the conditional sería instead of iba a ser?
You could, as both can translate closely in English depending on the context, but there is a slight difference in nuance. iba a ser emphasizes the actual expectation in that past moment ("was going to be"), while sería sounds more hypothetical ("would be"). For expressing unfulfilled past intentions or expectations, Latin American speakers heavily prefer the iba a plus infinitive structure used here.
If we were talking about multiple disasters, would lo trágico change to match?