Can any of you, the respected teachers help me know which of the following is right: 1. It's been quoted that she would work diligently. She would earn a huge sum of money and then she would enjoy this with her friends on weekends. b. It's been quoted that she would work diligently. She earned a huge sum of money and then she enjoyed this with her friends on weekends. Look forward to your answer
1
-
This use of past time "would" expresses propensity where it indicates a 'serial state', i.e. something that she did regularly.– BillJCommented Dec 4, 2017 at 7:23
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
"would" is subjunctive, so it's a possible future. All of the phrase should match the subjunctive state of they are all possible, but not yet reality.
If she did the earning and enjoying, then only part of the statement is subjective: the "would" implies a contrast. She did earn, but we expected her to work diligently [but she did not].
So it depends what one intends
-
Richard Haven, thanx for guidance. Actually I meant 'something that she did in past on regular basis, and 'would' is in kind of sense of 'used to'. So, my question is: if we are talking about repeated past actions for which 'would' can be used, whether after the first clause with 'would' other clauses can carry 'past tense' or all have to be with 'would'? Commented Dec 4, 2017 at 6:01
-
One does not generally use the subjunctive for things that actually happened. Each verb has its own tense; they don't generally carry over or control other verbs. If they don't agree in tense, then usually one is trying to make a comparison or contrast, e.g. what might have happened and what did happen Commented Dec 4, 2017 at 7:50
-
Dear Richard, I need your help to understand this thing too:we say, "What else can he do?" does it mean that 'He has done one thing for you, now why do you want him to do some other things too?' OR does it mean 'He has done many things for you, now why do you want him to do more things?' Commented Dec 7, 2017 at 5:05
-
"What else can he do?" might mean that he has no other option, unrelated to the number of things he has or has not done for you. In your interpretations, the phrase does not specify the number of things in either case. If one really wanted to know what other things one could do, it might sounds like, "What can I do for you ?" The emphasis is on you. Commented Dec 7, 2017 at 19:39