Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Reading a J.K Rowling book, I came across the following:

It's only dying a bit later than I would have, because I am never going to the dark side! 

Is the would have part compete here or does it have an implied unspoken verb after it? For example: would have died. And is it a future or a past conditional in this context? If it's a past one then how could it be used in a future context?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Yes, it's an instance of ellipsis, in which the rest of I would have can be retrieved from the preceding words and give the meaning I would have died. We might unpack the meaning as something like It's only dying a bit later than I would have died, if I had been in similar circumstances. As such, it expresses unreal meaning. The speaker hadn’t really been in similar circumstances, so the thought is hypothetical. Such a construction is sometimes known as the third conditional.

I’m not sure what you mean by asking how it could be used in a future context. Can you give an example?

EDIT:

I now understand the intended meaning as ‘to die at the time indicated is merely a matter of dying at a time later than the speaker would have died in any case’. The unspoken part of the sentence is something like ‘if circumstances had been normal’ and the ‘would have’ construction looks back at the past from some time in the future.

share|improve this answer
    
I read it as ...than I would have died anyway (because we all die) , but +1 anyway. –  TimLymington Jun 16 '12 at 14:42
2  
The British edition reads "a bit later than I would have done". It's being used in a future context, because Harry Potter is choosing between two possible actions (doing nothing and doing something, I believe), both of which will likely result in his death in the near future. –  Peter Shor Jun 16 '12 at 14:43
    
@TimLymington: Ah, yes, I see. Probably right. Difficult to know without the context, of which I am totally ignorant. I'd assumed that 'it' was something, other than the speaker, that was dying. –  Barrie England Jun 16 '12 at 14:45
    
@Barrie- Thanks. Third conditinal is a past unreal conditional. And in this case Harry is talking about something in the future, so how could he use past conditinal for something that may happen in the future? Or is it a past in the future? –  Noah Jun 16 '12 at 14:54
    
@Noah: I have edited my answer. I don’t think it helps to think of ‘would have’ + past participle as past conditional, a term that is not widely used anyway. –  Barrie England Jun 16 '12 at 15:47
show 3 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.