In a school paper, my son wrote the sentence, "In 1763, the stalemate would be broken." His teacher told him to avoid the "past progressive tense." The phrase "would be" is clearly not an example of the past progressive tense--but I can't quite figure out what tense it is. Can anyone help?


In your sentence, would is a modal verb that doesn't have a tense per se.

From the Cambridge dictionary:

Modal verbs do not change in form to make different tenses.

All of the modal verbs can refer to present and future time. Only some of them can refer to past time.

In the case of your sentence, would is referring to a past event.

  • 1
    This tense is often called 'future in the past'. It isn't necessary here because a time reference is given, so it can simply be 'past'. – AmI Nov 8 '18 at 6:30

First, the sentence of your son is

In 1763, the stalemate would be broken.

so the verb is would be broken, and not just would be. It's a passive construction. The active counterpart would be:

In 1763, [something] would break the stalemate.

The use of would indicates a conditional mood. In this specific example, the tense is simple conditional (I would do smth).

N.B: Of course, here conditional doesn't imply there is a condition. It refers to a "future in the past" (i.e. future happenings with the past as a time reference).

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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