Search results for 'tag:Modal verbs tag:Simple past' matching tags 'Modal verbs' and 'Simple past'

Can we replace WOULD by WAS in such a sentence?

Anonymous — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:53:41 GMT

Hello, there,
In the following sentence:

Born in New York City on Oct. 27, 1858, Theodore Roosevelt is the second of four children of Theodore and Martha Bulloch Roosevelt. At age 6, T.R., his brother Elliott and friend Edith Carow (who would one day be his second wife) watch Abraham Lincoln's funeral procession from the home of T.R.'s grandfather on Manhattan's Union Square.

Can we change the modal verb WOULD into the simple past tense WAS? And what's the difference?
I think that WAS is also acceptable if we change a little bit of the context "who was his second wife", but I cannot explain the difference?
Coud you please help me out? Could you please explain the difference between these two verb systems in such a sentence?
Thank you in advance!

Re: A few English Grammar Questions !! Need help..

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:59:31 GMT

1. Â Â Â Â A group IS ... Â (Not important who is in the group). A group is a singular, countable noun.

3.Â Â Â Â Both wrong. Â Â Â Â She went home half an hour ago. Given, finished time requires simple past UNLESS it relates to another action in the past. e.g. She had gone home before the others arrived.

4.Â Â Â Â She has sold... Â Indefinite (no time) past. Done, but we don't know (or care) when.

5Â Â Â Â Ditto

6. Â Â Â Â Have you ever ...? Â Indefinite past. We don't know when.

7. Â Â Â Â Mmmm, this one is elementary ! Â Do you .... Â ALWAYS requires the infinitive form. e.g. Do you live..., Do you like..., Do you do... Do you have...?Â

I could write a whole grammar book on how to differentiate the 6 modal verbs and their MANY uses. I suggest you buy one.Â Â Â Â Good luck :)

Re: coordination: counterpart?

Clive — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:47:40 GMT

Hi,

I'm wondering if there's a grammatic or syntactic term ( or just speech part?!) named for the part "feed" (as opposed to "fly") in the sentence below? Counterpart? phrasal verb?

Or is it just simply two sentences connected by "and" with the second sentence omitting the subject and modal verb? <<< Yes. That's how I would express it.

If you want to look only at the word 'feed', it's a past participle. You could also consider it as simple past tense (ie Bats can fly and (bats) feed in the dark), but joining two different tenses by 'and' like this is not usually advisable.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: It was thought (by many) to have been written by Michael.

Jackson6612 — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:17:01 GMT

It was thought (by many) to have been written by Michael.

In the above sentence:

''It'' is used as a subject.

''was'' is an auxiliary verb showing simple past tense and ''thought'' is a past participle serving the function of the main verb with reference to some past action.

''to have been'', as CB says, is a perfect infinitive and ''written'' is a past participle.

Is what I say above correct?

You should be going now.

In the above sentence:

''should'' is a modal verb.

''be'' is an auxiliary verb and ''going'' a main verb.

Is my description correct?

Would

Rotter — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:26:03 GMT

In the early Church, Christians would celebrate the anniversary of a martyr's death for Christ (known as the saint's "birth day") by serving an All-Night Vigil, and then celebrating the Eucharist over their tomb or place of martyrdom. In the fourth century, neighbouring dioceses began to transfer relics, and to celebrate the feast days of specific martyrs in common. Frequently, a number of Christians would suffer martyrdom on the same day, which naturally led to a joint commemoration. In the persecution of Diocletian the number of martyrs became so great that a separate day could not be assigned to each. But the Church, feeling that every martyr should be venerated, appointed a common day for all.

I have learnt to write the modal verb 'would' in the case of a hypothesis. Marius and a few others taught me this recently.
I don't know the reason to write the modal verb 'would' in the first sentence of the above.
I would write the following:
In the early Church, Christians celebrated the anniversary of a maty'r death for Christ ...
What is wrong with my way of writing in this context ? It was a past event so to write simple past tense is appropriate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now look at the following:
Frequently, a number of Christians would suffer martyrdom on the same day, which naturally ...

What is the necessity of writing 'Christians would suffer' here?

I would write the following:

Frequently, a number of Christians suffered martyrdom on the same day, which naturally ...
Is the above incorrect in the given context?

[People of this country celebrate or rather pay a great attention to All Saint's Day.]

Re: Why present perfect?

paco2004 — Sun, 01 May 2005 03:15:37 GMT

Rule: Modal verbs (and "must" is one of them) cannot be followed by a past tense form. To express past tense after a modal add "have" and the past participle. This is not truly a "present perfect" but a "modal perfect". In the case of the modal perfect construction the difference between simple past and present perfect is neutralized.

This rule seems rather simple but important. I have to keep it in mind.

He must have lived here for five years. / He has lived here for five years.

I must have met him five years ago. / I met him five years ago.

paco

Re: Why present perfect?

CalifJim — Sat, 30 Apr 2005 17:01:25 GMT

Rule: Modal verbs (and "must" is one of them) cannot be followed by a past tense form. To express past tense after a modal add "have" and the past participle. This is not truly a "present perfect" but a "modal perfect". In the case of the modal perfect construction the difference between simple past and present perfect is neutralized.

That is, adding "must" either to a simple past or to a present perfect creates the same modal perfect structure:

He read the book yesterday. > He must have read the book yesterday.
He has read the book twice. > He must have read the book twice.

CJ