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

Re: Names of different tenses

Cool Breeze — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:58:41 GMT

Raen
He would have had completed the task if he had asked for help before he left work -- would have had completed used for had asked (past perfect) that happens before left (simple past)

Is it false then? "would have + (past perfect)" doesn't exist?

These terms may not be the same everywhere but the basic grammar of the language is the same all over the Anglo-Saxon world! Would have had completed is always wrong. Would is a defective/modal auxiliary and only an infinitive is possible after these auxiliaries. In this case the perfect infinitive must be used. There are two theoretical alternatives using your verbs. Either would have completed or would have had. All other combinations are wrong. The perfect infinitive consists of have + past participle. It is impossible to have another past participle right after a perfect infinitive. That is impossible in all Germanic languages, I believe.

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: 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: 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: the tense

Doll — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:57:58 GMT

Hello New Guest,

I really understand what you are looking for because when I was at intermediate level, I was questioning everything like you and interested in thinking every sentence in detail. Past perfect tense was my favourite.I questioned and thought about its usage for years because it wasn't an existing tense in my native language. I felt inefficient when I didn't use past perfect or had questions about it in my mind. To tell the truth, sometimes I still have. This is because I learn English as a foreign language and I don't have a native spaking environment key which will open the doors of questions so, it takes ,really, years to completely grab the real and accurate usage of something. This goes for present perfect tense and modals too. The thing you should do, if you care what I say, just to be patient. After years, I am sure, you will regard both tenses same even the past simple better in similar contexts as your original question.

One more thing, your thinking too much analytical on grammatical forms of the language may be an effect of your English teacher. You know, they do unnecessary exams and want you to find the right choice and want you make a discrimination between whether to use simple past or perfect though sometimes both can be used. To be frank, I still suffer from this. I am still too analytic.