I f we could ask for your cooperation, would you all please remain seated until your row has been called.” The first conditional uses the present tense in the if clause and will + infinitive in the result clause, whereas the second

Please visit these sites for your particular question(s): http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/grammar/conditional_special.htm http://www.ego4u.com/en/cram-up/grammar/conditional-sentences They should help you. If you have some

I just want to point out the word "could" is indicative of the subjunctive mood Modal verbs don't have tenses and moods in the way that other verbs do. could certainly acts like a past subjunctive in If I could help you, I would.

Is this sentence grammatically correct? Не would have lent you the book last week if you could have called for it . No, it's not. YOU ARE WRONG. -- The modal verbs can and may can also be found in conditional sentences. If they occur in

Other than conditionals, is would considered a past tense modal? "I know he would help me." What tense is the would? would is past in form ; it's historically the past of will . But it can be used in present-tense contexts, as

Jackson: #1 "do" is a verb. (auxiliary) not an adverb. "need" is the main verb; the object is the infinitive phrase..("need to" is synonymous with "have to") #2 say is the main verb, Need is an auxiliary

Some uses: Would functions as a more formal and more polite alternative to will. Would can refer to typical habitual actions and events in the past and often occurs in narratives: Would rather and would sooner are used to talk about preference

Thanks Goodman for these information.They really help me a lot understand this grammatical rule. I have some further questions if you don't mind This is my take: The use of "would rather" is not restricted by time. In certain

This is my take: The use of "would rather" is not restricted by time. In certain aspects, it contains a conditional element as well. Here is some info. Hope that helps your question. Rather than and would rather Rather than is normally

Hi, Could you try to convince me why the abrupt change of tense makes sense? Why should it make sense? After all, we're talking about English grammar! Anyway, somebody says it's an instance of unreal past ... We sometimes use past tenses