Would have gotten along well: choosing the right past conditional form

Here’s a tiny grammar trap that sneaks into everyday writing: would of gotten along well. Sound familiar? It’s that moment when your fingers want to type the familiar spoken version, and your brain has to remind them that written English isn’t spoken English unless we want it to be. The right form is would have gotten along well. Let me walk you through why, what the other options do, and how to spot this quietly stubborn error in your own writing.

What’s the correct form, and why

Answer: A. Would have gotten along well.

Here’s the thing: would have is a conditional perfect. It signals a hypothetical situation in the past—something that didn’t actually happen. The “have” is the helper that carries the past sense, and “gotten” (the past participle of get) is the main verb in this clean, complete past-perfect flavor. Put together, would have gotten along well means: in a past world that didn’t occur, these two people might have shared a good relationship.

Now, what about the other options?

• B. Would have gotten along good — This one trips people up because good is an adjective. We need an adverb to describe how they got along, not a descriptor of the noun (the way you feel about it). The correct adverb here is well. So good is the wrong word choice, not just a matter of style.

• C. Would get along well — This one changes the time frame. It talks about a present or future condition, not a hypothetical past. If you’re describing something that didn’t happen yet, you’d usually switch to would. But as soon as you want a past unreal scenario, would have is the right partner for the verb.

• D. Would have got along well — This one uses the simple past “got” after would have. In American English, some people do say would have gotten along well, and in British English you might hear would have got along well. Both can be heard in speech and some writing, but the standard, most precise form for a past perfect hypothetical is would have gotten along well. It keeps the nuance clear: a past counterfactual result, with the past participle after have.

A quick note on got vs gotten

• American English often uses gotten as the past participle of get, so would have gotten along well is perfectly natural in US contexts.

• British English tends to use got as the past participle, so would have got along well would be more common there.

If you’re writing for a specific audience or context, match the regional convention you’re aiming for. Either way, the key is the would have + past participle structure.

Spotting the trap in your own writing

Would of slipped in because it sounds like would’ve when you speak fast. The mouth makes a smooth shortcut, but the pen (or keyboard) wants the real grammar. A simple test works every time: try replacing would of with would have. If the sentence still makes sense, the would have form is the right choice. If it doesn’t, you’ve probably got a different construction or a misused word.

Another telltale sign—if you see of after would, pause. Would of is almost always a sign that the writer meant would have. The fix is two words, not one fused word.

Past-perfect mood, in plain English

Let me explain the core idea with a tiny mental model. English doesn’t just talk about time; it talks about time in relation to other times. When you say would have, you’re setting up a “what-if” that refers to a time before another past moment. The verb that carries the actual event is the past participle: gotten, or in some cases, got. That’s the hinge that makes the sentence fly rather than stumble.

A few extra notes to keep your writing tight

• Keep the verb chain clean: would have + past participle. That’s the universal rhythm for this space.

• Decide on regional style when you’re unsure. American usage loves gotten; British style tends to use got. Either choice can be correct as long as you stay consistent within your piece.

• If you’re aiming for a more formal tone, the two-word form would have is usually preferred over would’ve (contraction) in many contexts. Contractions are fine in many modern settings, but a fully written form is often clearer in academic-leaning writing.

• Remember the adverb well is the right choice here. Good is an adjective—reserve it for describing nouns, not adverbs.

A tiny practice set to sharpen your eye

• Rewrite the following to the correct form:

1. He would of responded sooner if he had known the deadline.

Correct version: He would have responded sooner if he had known the deadline.

2. They would have got along well if they had met earlier.

If your audience uses British English, you could also see would have got along well here.

Both convey the same past counterfactual idea; pick the form that matches your regional style.

• Try a few on your own:

a) I wish she would of invited me to the event.

b) They would have gotten along well with the new teammates.

c) If you had asked, we would get along well, right?

The goal with these is not just correctness, but readability. Your readers should glide through the sentence without tripping on a stray preposition or a clumsy adjective.

Why this matters in everyday writing

Clarity matters more than you might think. A single wrong word in a sentence can slow a reader down, fade a point, or make you sound less confident than you intend. The truth is these tiny grammar decisions accumulate. They shape the perceived credibility of your entire paragraph. When you write with precision—especially in contexts that hinge on nuance, such as describing hypothetical or counterfactual situations—you build trust with the reader. It feels like you’re in control of your message, not at the mercy of a slip of the tongue or a stray “of.”

A little digression that connects

Ever notice how in casual conversation we lean on contractions and quick turns of phrase, but in written form we often lean toward the careful, two-word versions? It’s not just rules for the sake of rules. It’s about catering to how readers expect to move through a sentence. In spoken language, “would’ve” sounds natural. In careful writing, two words—would have—offer the reader a fast, unambiguous map. The trick is to find the balance. A good rule of thumb: in formal or semi-formal contexts, favor would have; in relaxed, conversational pieces, would’ve is perfectly acceptable if you’re aiming for a friendly tone—just be sure the audience will respond to it that way.

A quick toolkit you can keep near your keyboard

• When in doubt, try the replacement test with would have.

• Remember the overall time-frame your sentence implies—past counterfactual needs would have.

• Check the verb form: is the main action a past participle after have? If yes, you’re on the right track.

• Choose the regional variant deliberately and stay consistent within the piece.

• Use well as the adverb to describe how two people relate, not good.

Bringing it back to everyday writing

Whether you’re drafting a note to a colleague, shaping a short essay, or polishing a lot of short responses for a set of writing prompts, the small details are the difference between a solid piece and a standout one. This particular form is a microcosm of a larger truth: clean syntax and precise word choice do a lot of heavy lifting. They give your ideas room to breathe and your voice a little more authority. And when you look back on your writing, you’ll notice the difference in one gasping breath between would have gotten along well and would have gotten along well—with or without that small but mighty difference.

In closing: a quick recap

• The correct form is would have gotten along well.

• Would have is the conditional past that signals a hypothetical past scenario.

• Gotten vs got reflects regional preferences; both can be correct if used consistently.

• Would have gotten along well uses the past participle gotten, which is standard in American usage; British English might prefer would have got along well.

• The common error would of is a spoken shortcut that doesn’t fit formal writing; swap in would have for clarity.

• A simple test is to replace would of with would have and see if the sentence still carries the intended meaning.

If you walk away with one takeaway today, let it be this: when you want to express a past “what might have been,” lean on would have plus the past participle. It’s a small construction, but it carries a big responsibility—the responsibility of clear, credible writing. And isn’t that what good communication is all about? It’s the difference between a sentence that says what happened and one that lets the reader imagine what could have happened—clearly, confidently, and with a touch of conversational ease.