0
New2grammar Posted 18 years ago
Grammar

could have

Plants grown for biofuel are eating up land which would/could have been used to grow food plants.

I think would is right and could is possible. What do you think? If could is wrong, please convince me.
Thanks.
  

Top answer

Both are grammatical and the choice would depend on the context. Without context, I would choose could . The relative clause would then mean that it would have been possible to use the land to grow food plants; now it is being used to grow plants for biofuel.

— Cool Breeze

  • Both are grammatical and the choice would depend on the context.
  • Without context, I would choose could .
  • The relative clause would then mean that it would have been possible to use the land to grow food plants; now it is being used to grow plants for biofuel.
  • The choice of would gives the impression that there was a premeditated plan to use the land to grow food plants.
  • Others may see it differently, though.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

4 Answers
0
Both are grammatical and the choice would depend on the context. Without context, I would choose could. The relative clause would then mean that it would have been possible to use the land to grow food plants; now it is being used to grow plants for biofuel. The choice of would gives the impression that there was a premeditated plan to use the land to grow food plants.
Others ma
0
0
Thank you CB. I would like to hear from another expert.
0
0
New2grammarwhich would/could have been used to grow food plants
Either one. The analogous ideas are will and can. Use the one that conveys the meaning you want to convey.

The land will be used to grow food plants underlies would have been used ... [certainty that this was going to happen]

The l
0
0
Thanks, CJ. I agree with you.
0

Related Questions