0

I would like to know what is the appropriate tense in the following sentence.

An emperor would/will always be an emperor, no matter how badly he botched/botches his job, but a president or a PM will lose his job if he fails to satisfy the majority of the citizenry.

On the one hand, the first part seems to indicate a general rule, thus should use present tense i.e.

An Emperor will always be an emperor...

but on the other hand, I am trying to comment on an institution that no longer exists, and should use past tense.

Thank you for your time

Improve this question
3
  • 1
    You use the past tense because the institution no longer exists. The general rule is not a general rule. It was a general rule. Now it is not even a rule anymore.
    – RegDwigнt
    Aug 19, 2019 at 12:53
  • Consider King Charles I of England, and King Constantine of Greece, and the Roman Emperor Nero.
    – Michael Harvey
    Aug 19, 2019 at 13:28
  • It depends on the "voice" you're using.
    – Hot Licks
    Jun 14, 2020 at 23:52

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

As you say

I am trying to comment on an institution that no longer exists, and should use past tense.

Then use the past tense: would.

An emperor would (past) always be an emperor, no matter how badly he botched (past) his job, but [you have now moved to the present] a president or a PM will lose (future) his job if he fails (present) to satisfy the majority of the citizenry.

Improve this answer
0

An emperor will always be an emperor, no matter how badly he botches his job, but a president or a PM will lose his job if he fails to satisfy the majority of the citizenry.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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