Search results for 'tag:Clauses tag:Simple past' matching tags 'Clauses' and 'Simple past'

Re: modal 'would'

Cool Breeze — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:00:47 GMT

CalifJim
Like all future forms (will), Future in the Past (would) cannot be used in (subordinate) clauses beginning with time expressions such as: when, while, before, after, by the time, as soon as, if, unless, etc. In stead of using Future in the Past (would), you must use Simple Past (---ed).

In other words, "I wanted to know if the train would arrive on time" is wrong? I consider it correct because if does not denote condition in the sentence.

Re: modal 'would'

CalifJim — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:31:49 GMT

REMEMBER No Future in Time Clauses

will is the mark of the Future of the Present.

would is the mark of the Future of the Past.

This reminder applies to both "Futures". It means: No will or would in subordinate clauses introduced by conjunctions such as when, before, after, etc.

Like all future forms (will), Future in the Past (would) cannot be used in (subordinate) clauses beginning with time expressions such as: when, while, before, after, by the time, as soon as, if, unless, etc. In stead of using Future in the Past (would), you must use Simple Past (---ed).

Then it went on to give this example as Incorrect with another one following it.

I already told Mark that when he would arrive, we would go out for dinner. (The incorrect clause is shown in red. The explanation above says when and would do not go together. The clause in red has when and would together, so it's wrong.)

The explanation says a simple past ( --- ed) must be used instead of the pattern with would, so the correct version is:

I already told Mark that when he arrived, we would go out for dinner.

Re: modal 'would'

Avangi — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 04:53:27 GMT

What I neglected to point out is that the instructions from your web site specify the use of simple past within the clause which starts with a time expression. "We would go out for dinner" is a separate clause. So I still see no inconsistency.

It would clarify matters if you would say exactly what it is that you're objecting to.

- A.

Re: modal 'would'

Avangi — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 04:24:55 GMT

This seems consistent. "Already" is an example of a time expression, so simple past is required. "I already told Mark that when he arrived, we would go out for dinner.

Perhaps you're concerned about the final clause. (They probably shouldn't have used that example.) "I already told Mark that when he arrived we went out for dinner." That's a separate deal. Obviously it makes no sense.

Best wishes, A.

modal 'would'

Anonymous — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 03:34:54 GMT

Hi,

I was brushing on my knowledge of the modal "would" with the help of the Englishpage website and got stuck on what it is saying here on its tutorial on "would".

REMEMBER No Future in Time Clauses

Like all future forms, Future in the Past cannot be used in clauses beginning with time expressions such as: when, while, before, after, by the time, as soon as, if, unless, etc. In stead of suing Future in the Past, you must use Simple Past.

Then it went on to give this example as Incorrect with another one following it.

I already told Mark that when he would arrive, we would go out for dinner.

Re: Conditional or not?

Huevos — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:00:24 GMT

Hello Anonymous,

Avoid using the word "would" in the "if" clause of your conditional sentences. Use the present (type 1), simple past (type 2) or past perfect (type 3).

Re: Provided that

CalifJim — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:49:16 GMT

pedrina
Is it possible to use "provided that" for sentences in the simple past?

Yes, but it's not as common as the present. The provided that clause normally occurs after the main clause.

The government decided to allow the researchers to continue provided that their projects were fully funded by the private sector.

The farmers believed that they might still obtain a good harvest provided that it rained every day for the rest of the season.

Tom was permitted to use any of the tools in the workshop provided that he returned them to their proper place after using them.

as long as may substitute for provided that.

Re: If I had listened to you

Huevos — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:57:21 GMT

New2grammar
Oh no. I didn't buy a lottery ticket (?? This means any ticket of any lottery. How to be specific to the lottery his friend advised)

You could say "Oh no. I didn't buy that lottery ticket".

New2grammar
Why is there a condition? "supposing that the numbers had been selected before the draw"

The winning number was drawn, say, yesterday, and matched the number his friend advised him to buy

The condition is that the if clause may be fulfilled. In your sentences it is already impossible to fulfil the if clause making the sentences purely hypothesis. This is known as a type III conditional and is formed thus: if + past perfect + would + have + past participle. A conditional formed with if + simple past is known as a type II conditional and is used where it is still possible to fulfil the if clause however unlikely that may be.

Re: tenses

Clive — Tue, 27 May 2008 03:37:37 GMT

Hi,

1. When you use the word 'when', do you have to use a past perfect in the subordinate clause to denote the past activity or can we use a past there like the main clause to make the context apparent?

When he had eaten his lunch, he ~~rose up~~ got up and went home.

When he finished (or 'ate') his lunch, he ~~rose up~~ got up and went home.

The above is OK with Simple Past, because the sequence of events is clear.

An example of a case where the Simple Past does not make the sequence clear is 'When he ate his lunch, he read a book'. If you want to show that the eating was first, you can say 'When he had eaten his lunch, he read a book'.

2. Why is these tenses are not correctly used?

Workers are installing extra loudspeakers because the music in tonight's concert will need amplication. This is OK.

Can I make it like this?

Workers are installing extra loudspeakers because the music in tonight's concert will be???needing amplication. This is OK, if you feel that you want to stress the duration of the 'needing'.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: sequence

Anonymous — Fri, 23 May 2008 01:21:25 GMT

I think New2grammar said that, to him, a past perfect always precedes a present. It seems that is not always correct, isn't it??

CalifJim wrote:

To be sure, I think we'd need at least one paragraph that precedes this sentence.

Maybe the first part about the dogs should have read The sites had first been identified ..., but the author simplified the tense to the simple past because it was clear from context that the dogs were first and the testing next.

In isolation it's a strange sequence of tenses.

I think iff the first clause didn't have the word 'first', then we could not make the assertion that the dog found the site first and later used the equipment to verify the result. Sorry I couldn't paste the original sentence.