Posted for Kevin
I would like to ask a question about English
In the following sentence,
Tom hunted for a road that led to John's house.
my question is "led', can I use "leads" instead?
why should it be "led"?
for the purpose to agree with "hunted"?
with thanks.
kevin
If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
1 2 3 4 5
Posted for Kevin I would like to ask a question about English In the following sentence, Tom hunted for a road that led to John's house. my question is "led', can I use "leads" instead?

Yes
why should it be "led"?

In this sentence I think "leads" is more appropriate, as the sentence is referring to a permanent state, not just one that existed at the moment of the hunting. However, if you had "the road" instead of "a road", then "led" might be better, because then you'd be referring to what was true at a particular moment.
for the purpose to agree with "hunted"?

No

athel (BrE)
Posted for Kevin I would like to ask a question about English In the following sentence, Tom hunted for a road that led to John's house. my question is "led', can I use "leads" instead?

Yes, if John hasn't moved.
why should it be "led"? for the purpose to agree with "hunted"?

Yes.
Adrian
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
In the following sentence, Tom hunted for a road that led to John's house. my question is "led', can I use "leads" instead? why should it be "led"? for the purpose to agree with "hunted"?

In this case LED is in the past tense because
HUNTED is in the past tense.
As is normal in English, the same thing can be
expressed in various ways, e.g.
Tom hunted for a road leading to John's house (participle) Tom hunted for a road that might lead to John's house (conditional tense) All variants may be grammatically correct, and each may convey a miniscule point of difference from the other alternatives which perhaps need not concern you.

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Posted for Kevin I would like to ask a question about English In the following sentence, Tom hunted for a ... "led', can I use "leads" instead? why should it be "led"? for the purpose to agree with "hunted"? with thanks.

You can use "leads" if you also change "hunted" to "hunts". Tense agreement and all that.
Interesting. My intuition is pretty much the opposite. With "the road", I get the image of their being a well-defined "road that leads to John's house", and Tom was trying to find it. With "a road", he just wanted some road that led there at the time. So I would go with

Tom hunted for a road that led to John's house.
Tom hunted for the road that leads to John's house.

The others aren't wrong, though.

Evan Kirshenbaum + HP Laboratories >The General Theorem of Usenet
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 >Information: If you really want toPalo Alto, CA 94304 >know the definitive answer, post
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Precisely. 'Hunted' is past simple tense; 'led' is also past simple. 'Leads' is present simple and there is an incongruity in the sentence if one mixes the tenses.
You could say 'Tom was hunting for the road that leads to John's house' because that implies a PRESENT continuous or progressive aspect to his action.

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Yes In this sentence I think "leads" is more appropriate, ... be referring to what was true at a particular moment.

Interesting. My intuition is pretty much the opposite. With "the road", I get the image of their being a well-defined ... Tom hunted for a road that led to John's house. Tom hunted for the road that leads to John's house.

I'll cast my lot with you.
The others aren't wrong, though.

Agreed.

Skitt (AmE)
No NESsie, but oh, so close ...
Yes, if John hasn't moved. Yes.

Precisely. 'Hunted' is past simple tense; 'led' is also past simple. 'Leads' is present simple and there is an incongruity in the sentence if one mixes the tenses.

But there are times it is correct to mix the tenses.

If the use was in a detective novel of 1932, I would expect "Tom hunted for a road that led to John's house." Everything is in the past.

If the use was today, speaking about yesterday, I would well imagine "Tom hunted for a road that leads to John's house." John's house is still there, wherever it is, there is a road that goes there, and Tom (and perhaps I) need to find out which one it is. Yesterday, Tom spent time hunting. The hunt is in the past but the road is in the present.
You could say 'Tom was hunting for the road that leads to John's house' because that implies a PRESENT continuous or progressive aspect to his action.

Sorry, your explanation doesn't quite work. "Tom was hunting..." has nothing about the present. The "continuous or progressive aspect" would be shown in something like "Tom was hunting for the road when the car broke down." Something was ongoing while something else happened.

Best Donna Richoux
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Show more