+0
Hi ,

In newspaper I was reading an Interview of a cine actor he mentioned " I would be seated on the banks of the ganga ready for shoot and people would come and fall at my feet" . I got a doubt he could have mentioned simply "I seated/sat on the banks of the ganga ready for shoot and people came and fall at my feet" as he was narrating the past incedent .

Now could you please tell me the usage difference of the below sentences - both are telling about the past incedent

a) I would be seated on the banks of the ganga ready for shoot and people would come and fall at my feet .

b )I seated/sat on the banks of the ganga ready for shoot and people came and fall at my feet.

I would appreciate your help.

Thanks in advance
daniel

+0
if you use simple past, it describes only a single incident.

What you're looking for is a sort of conditional: If I were to sit, this would happen / whenever I would sit, this would happen

It's something like a continuous tense situation : I was sitting, and this was happening. But in fact, it only happened when this certain condition obtained.
+0
I would be seated on the banks ... and ...
I would be sitting on the banks ... and ...
I would sit on the banks ... and ...

I was seated on the banks ... and ...
I was sitting on the banks ... and ...
I seated / sat on the banks ... and ...

There is little difference between these. (You need a form of be before seated in these.)

Those with would describe a situation that happened more than once. The others are used to describe a situation that probably only happened once. would sit and sat can be used to include the idea that the subject actively placed himself in the sitting position.

CJ