0
Anonymous Posted 16 years ago
Grammar

Had

Hello,

They would not have left him until he (had) offered them the money. (I take it (had) is unnecessary here, or is it needed because of 'would have' in the first clause?)

2) I am not going to say yes just so you can have a good time (would 'could' be better than 'can' because 'I am not going to' refers to the future?)

3) We normally say capitalism without an article. But suppose we substitute free market for it, what do we do: In capitalism, there is exploitation. In free market, there is exploitation. (is no article necessary?)

Thanks.
  

Top answer

1) They would not have left him until he (had) offered them the money. -- No. For that very reason, 'can' is better.

  • 1) They would not have left him until he (had) offered them the money.
  • -- No.
  • For that very reason, 'can' is better.
  • ) 3) We normally say 'capitalism' without an article.
  • But suppose we substitute 'free market' for it, what do we do: In capitalism, there is exploitation.
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.

1 Answers
0
1) They would not have left him until he (had) offered them the money. (I take it (had) is unnecessary here, or is it needed because of 'would have' in the first clause?-- I don't think it is necessary.)

2) I am not going to say 'yes' just so you can have a good time (would 'could' be better than 'can' because 'I am not going to' refers to the future?-- No. For that very reas

Related Questions