+0

Scientists would discover the disease had probably originated in bats and had then passed through a second species – in all likelihood, but not certainly, pangolins, a type of scaly anteater – before infecting humans."

How did Britain get its response to coronavirus so wrong?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/18/how-did-britain-get-its-response-to-coronavirus-so-wrong

Please explain the use of "would and had ( used twice) in the above.
When do we use the function "–" as used in the above?

+1
anonymousPlease explain the use of "would"

"would" is a future of the past in the given passage, so it's equivalent to "were going to". It implies "eventually".

Scientists would discover ~ Scientists were eventually going to discover

anonymousPlease explain the use of ... "had" ( used twice) in the above.

"had" implies "previously", i.e., before the discovery mentioned at the beginning of the sentence and explained above in this post.

the disease had probably originated in bats and had then passed through ~
the disease had probably previously originated in bats and had then previously passed through

anonymousWhen do we use the function "–" as used in the above?

The em-dash is used to set off parenthetical remarks that are not crucial to the core meaning of the sentence.

CJ

Comments  

Scientists would discover the disease had probably originated in bats and had then passed through a second species – in all likelihood, but not certainly, pangolins, a type of scaly anteater – before infecting humans."

How did Britain get its response to coronavirus so wrong?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/18/how-did-britain-get-its-response-to-coronavirus-so-wrong

Please explain the use of "would and had ( used twice) in the above.
When do we use the function "–" as used in the above?

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
 CalifJim's reply was promoted to an answer.
Jigneshbharati As written, it is not garmmatical. Please note as edited.

Scientists discovered the disease had probably originated in bats and then passed onto another species – in all likelihood, but not certainly, pangolins, a type of scaly anteater – before infecting humans."
How did Britain get its response to coronavirus so wrong?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/18/how-did-britain-get-its-response-to-coronavirus-so-...
Please explain the use of "would and had ( used twice) in the above.
When do we use the function "–" as used in the above?

The use of "would" and "had" usually suggests hypothetical conditions. I would have waited for you if John had hurried me. That fact was, I didn't wait for you.

anonymous
Jigneshbharati As written, it is not garmmatical. Please note as edited.

Scientists discovered the disease had probably originated in bats and then passed onto another species – in all likelihood, but not certainly, pangolins, a type of scaly anteater – before infecting humans."
How did Britain get its response to coronavirus so wrong?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/18/how-did-britain-get-its-response-to-coronavirus-so-...
Please explain the use of "would and had ( used twice) in the above.
When do we use the function "–" as used in the above?

The use of "would" and "had" usually suggests hypothetical conditions. I would have waited for you if John had hurried me. That fact was, I didn't wait for you.

Do you want to say that the quote that the OP took from the link was wrong?

The modifying you've done to the original text is clear and easy to understand. If that's the exact meaning, then I already understood it too.

But this structure "would + verb" that represents one of the would usages which is called "future in the past" is existed in English grammar, and sometimes, it is confusing.

Now, I'm wondering if I take that original text, that you said it's ungrammatical, and modify it like the following:

"Scientists would have discovered that the disease had probably originated in bats and had then passed through a second species – in all likelihood, but not certainly, pangolins, a type of scaly anteater – before infecting humans."

1) Would it be correct grammatically? 2) If so, would it have the exact same meaning they wanted?

Could you please consider my note and wondering, because it caught my attention what you stated.


Thanks a lot.

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.