Thank you again.
Can you tell me how this works?
1)It was hard. It was during a tough time I was dropped (dropped -- better?) out of college due to the pressure. I may have been too young. 1) We had moved our house. It was difficult. 2) I had married by then, and I was pregnant. I married a guy I knew for some time. He was funny. He worked for two years and changed the job.
No. 1 only tells me that their moving of the house occured before the main time frame.
No. 2 is what baffles me: it seems to put the event of her marrying to the same time period as moving of the house. Then what? All back to a normal period? By then, I don't know if I am in the prior(??) main time frame or a new main time frame is established.
Could it be said? that it doesn't matter which main time frame it falls back in-- time differentiation needs not be made. (after all, past is past and pp is used to turn back the clock for that part only -- makes sense?)
2)He remarked that it must have seemed as if her promise
would fail, or that her words came from a need, not from her heart.
Does this 'would fail' contain a sense of past conditional?
I think you said that 'would fail' is no.2 conditional; then again, I heard someone said in this forum that a person should not use 'would' in the if-clause (I would consider 'if' and 'as if' to be synonomous). Did say that 'would fail' in the if-clause is in the present and the whole sentence is no. 2 conditional? I thought a no. 2 conditional had a past tense in the if-clasuse?