In most cases, the were subjunctive is optional, at least in British English. Here only the indicative makes sense. The authors of 'The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language' avoid referring to a were subjunctive at all, preferring 'irrealis were'.
This is a rather unusual use of would, but a legitimate one nevertheless. It is used here to describe ‘a past event as seen in the future from a point further in the past’. That description is from ‘An A-Z of English Grammar and Usage’ by Leech and others. The example given in the book is:
The building of the bridge was an important event which would be
1 and 2 are both conditional uses, although the condition is implicit rather than expressly stated:
[If I took a taxi], how much would it cost to travel 50 miles?
[If the minimum wage were increased], small flourishing companies would be harmed.
3 could be either a conditional or a 'future in past', depending on context:
[If I claimed that the ...
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (p198) states:
Would is also used to indicate futurity in the past, futurity relative
to the time referred to by the preterite.
Left is the preterite in the sentence: They left the house at 6 and would reach Edinburgh 12 hours later.
The CGEL goes on to explain that with this use of would ...
Assuming you change 'lie' to 'lies' in the second variant, both sentences would be correct, but have a slightly different emphasis.
You need to change 'lie' to 'lies' because 'the trap' is third person singular and requires an 's' in present indicative. (If you google: "Lie verb table" you will get lots of hits on the grammatic form. I'm linking to one ...
I take it you are referring to time-zone issues: if I'm in the U.S., and I'm referring to the death of someone in Japan, the person in question might have died on 2014-07-22 while it's still 2014-07-21 where I am.
In such a situation, it's not correct to use tomorrow, because tomorrow is in the future. If less than 24 hours have passed since death, today is ...
I would advise against should have been finished.
At best it implies that, despite what was planned, it will not be finished by next Monday.
Assuming that you mean to convey that it will likely be finished by next Monday, I would stick with it should be finished by next Monday.
You're right: this is unusual. The historic present, which is already questionable in such a bland, not very vivid story, should not be accompanied by would but by will, if by any form of will at all; the switch from present to past here is awkward.
In fact, I cannot think of a situation where the historic present goes well with words referring to the ...
The quoted text isn't from story's narration, but from the plot synopsis The Wonder Years at Wikipedia, so the tense of the narration is irrelevant.
... After graduating from Junior High, Kevin and Winnie both go to McKinley High and Paul attends a prep school. Paul would later transfer to McKinley High and join Kevin and Winnie.
The synopsis uses would ...
The sentences under discussion are in the conditional perfect. No, they cannot be used as the future perfect, because they are not the future perfect. The word choice defines the tense, and you can't just call it something else. If you had written "I will have finished my homework," that would then be the future perfect.
Here are two examples. (I just made them up, so please excuse my pedestrian style.)
Before the French revolution, there were food shortages. Even bread was becoming scarce. What would the people eat? Marie Antoinette came up with a brilliant idea: "Let them eat cake!"*
Egypt's government could decide to devaluate the ...
Strict sequence-of-tenses gets muddy when Speech time, Event time and Reference time overlap, as in your instance.
When I got home yesterday, John called and said he will arrive next week.
Here, the Event time (next week, the time of the event ‘I’ am speaking about in this clause) happens to lie in the future with respect to both the time when John ...
"... if I were a girl"
A very simple way of viewing the whole mood thing is that fact-statements are indicative, and thought-statements are subjunctive.
In this sentence, assuming that the speaker is male, being a girl is not a fact and cannot be indicative. Being a girl is a thought-statement, so it should use a subjunctive verb.
This can be tested by ...
It's a question of whether you're talking about something that happened in the past, or something that is happening presently.
There are fewer mosquitos than I would expect. (The expectation is happening right now.)
There are fewer mosquitos than I would have expected, but now I know it's because they just sprayed the area with mosquito repellent. (...
Of course they're possible.
As to whether you'd want to use them, that's another question entirely. Each new auxiliary verb you use further narrows the temporal interpretation of the verb. After a certain point, it just doesn't matter 99% of the time. In other cases, it just sounds weird.
For the perfect continuous, that's likely because of the double ...
There is nothing grammatically wrong with your sentence, except a bit of possible ambiguity: it's not completely clear whether you mean
My pet dog died last summer; she was the only one I had, but I was sure that after a year I would get over it.
My pet dog died last summer; she was the only one I had, but after a year, I was sure that [at some ...
Yes, it's correct. Would is the preterite form of the modal auxiliary will. Referring to a past event, you're putting both promise and will in the preterite. And the implicit reference for tomorrow is now: it means the next day in relation to now. Since you're putting the whole thing into the past, it makes absolute sense to do what you've done and to ...
I understand what you mean with the sentence but it took me some effort. My choice would be:
"It lacks exact references to the book, something about argumentative analysis I would come to learn later in the course."
This tense is called a conditional perfect and is described as "something that might have happened in the past but had not happened at that ...
According to the Cambridge Dictionary it is future perfect simple, and is entirely acceptable.
The reason for this is that future perfect simple is constructed
will/shall + have + the -ed form of the verb
which corresponds to
[I] will have come [to learn]
And he was a Trump supporter down the line.
down the line idiom TFD
All the way; throughout:
And shouldn't it be like this: "And he "might be" a Trump supporter
down the line."
No, the idiom implies before, during and after ... all the way and throughout.
It would be correct to change the first sentence into
He agreed to those changes, but insisted that if the team did not reach the objective by the deadline, the company had to commit to implement all the modifications"
In the second sentence the tense of the verbs is consistent.
We agreed that, when xyz happens, we would do abc
This sentence does not make sense to me. If ‘happens’ is present tense, xyz clearly is still in the future (or is a general statement, ‘when’ meaning in effect ‘whenever’). Therefore, ‘do’ should also be in the future (or present) tense, rather than in the conditional mood:
We agreed that, when xyz ...
It means just the same as though it had had a going inserted:
These Jägers were going to play a significant role in subsequent events.
This was the beginning of a civil war between the Whites and the Reds that was going to last for nearly four months.
"He thought that he would remain young." He may be young now, and thinks he will remain young forever. Or he may now be old, and this is a statement about what he thought in the past.
"He thought that he would have remained young." He is now old, and is reflecting on an erroneous belief that he previously held, that he would have remained young.