Flores...

Question

1. Flores was never connected by land bridges to either continent.
Can you please clarify this sentence?
Is "bridges" in this sentence a verb?
2. Travelling to Flores involved sea crossings of up to 24 kilometers.
Does "involved" in this sentence mean "caused"?
3. Most of the dead would have been carried down the road.
Does "would have been carried" mean "could..."?
If I'm almost certain.
4. Transporting such enormous stones was a remarkable achievement for the time.
Does "for the time" mean "in that time"?

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

Jumanah1. Flores was never connected by land bridges to either continent.Can you please clarify this sentence?Is "bridges" in this sentence a verb?

No. A bridge is a structure that allows people to cross water without getting wet.
A land bridge is a bridge made by nature.

2. Travelling to Flores involved sea crossings of up to 24 kilometers.
Does "involved" in this sentence mean "caused"?
No. It means that people had to arrange travel by boat to get to Flores.

3. Most of the dead would have been carried down the road.
Does "would have been carried" mean "could..."?
No. It was the custom to carry dead bodies that way.

4. Transporting such enormous stones was a remarkable achievement for the time.
Does "for the time" mean "in that time"?
It means that people did not have technology to move heavy stones in that time. So we are amazed by their construction.

Jumanah · Answer

1. Flores was never connected by land bridges to either continent.
Does it have the same meaning as "Flores was never connected with land bridges"?
And what do they mean by "to either continent"
Why don't they say "to either continents"?
2. Most of the dead would have been carried down the road"
Why do they say "would have been carried..."
Why don't say "...carried"?

AlpheccaStars · Answer

JumanahDoes it have the same meaning as "Flores was never connected with land bridges"?

Yes.

JumanahAnd what do they mean by "to either continent"

Flores lay between two different continents. It was not connected to either one or the other.
The singular is used after either.

JumanahWhy do they say "would have been carried..."

It shows some habitual action in the past, but we are not absolutely certain about it. The evidence points to the idea that they had a ceremony. When people died, they carried the bodies down the road.

Jumanah · Answer

Okay,
Most of the dead would have been carried..."
Does it have the same meaning as "Most of the dead could have been carried..."?

AlpheccaStars · Answer

"Could" is either speculation (guessing) or ability. The meaning is different.

Jumanah · Answer

Some researchers who claim that the area couldn't have been hit by a meteorite because there was no evidence of a crater would have caused.
Can "would have caused" replaced with "could have caused"?

AlpheccaStars · Answer

Some researchers who claim that the area couldn't have been hit by a meteorite because there was no evidence of a crater that a meteor strike would have caused.

"Would" is better because it is the past of "will."
A large meteor will cause a large crater. Researchers will know for certain that a meteor hit when they discover evidence of a large crater.

CalifJim · Answer

Jumanah3. Most of the dead would have been carried down the road. Does "would have been carried" mean "could..."?

No. You seem to be having some trouble seeing the distinction between 'would' and 'could'. They are different.
__________

'could' can refer to physical ability:

They could have been carried. ~ People had the [power / ability / strength] to carry them (whether these people carried them or not).
___

'could' can refer to logical possibility:

They could have been carried. ~ Maybe people carried them. (We don't know for sure.)
___

'would' says that something is true, but in an imagined world. It does not involve physical ability or logical possibility.

They would have been carried. ~ We (can easily) imagine that people (certainly) did carry them.

CJ

Jumanah · Answer

If I want to talk about something was done habitually.
Is it correct to say "She would have been taught by her"?

AlpheccaStars · Answer

Jumanah"She would have been taught by her"?

Your use of pronouns is confusing. Are "she" and "her" the same female person?
Use names, and it will be much better.

Habitual action in the past is set in a story. So it needs context.

Anita grew up on a farm, and it was 10 miles to the nearest school. Her family did not have any way to take her to school, because all the farm chores needed to be done in the morning. So she would have been taught at home, by her older sisters.
The passive voice is not as natural as active voice, especially in narratives.
So her older sisters would have taught her reading, writing and arithmetic at home.
So her older sisters would have been her teachers.

But the above is not habitual action because it does not have any time frequency.

The following shows habitual action. It is something that happened every day in the past.
Every day her sisters would give her a lesson after the morning's chores were finished. Every night before bedtime Anita would do her homework.

Flores...

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions