meaning

Question

The main verb in the below sentence is hard to interpret.

e.g. It would have been at that time she went to live near
Manheim.

In general, that form is usually used to express the unreal condition. So I make my guess about the meaning of this sentence such that ;

1. She went to live near Manheim at some time in the past but not
at that time

2. She could have live near Meanheim at that time but the truth is
that she was not able to do so or she had no interest to do so,
which means she never lived near Manheim.

Which one is a proper alternative?
Or else How do you rephrase the example sentence?

Fivejedjon · Accepted Answer

Would can be used to suggest the idea of a high degree of certainty, though not as high as that suggested by will. The certainy can be about the present, as in the first two examples, or about the past, as in the third:

A: Luke was born in 1979.
B: So he will be 32 or 33 now.

A: Mary was born during the Second World War.
C: So she would be over 70 now.

A: Mary and Ernst got divorced in the late 1970s.

B: It will/would have been at that time that she went to live in Mannheim.

In each of B's responses, the actual degree of certainty is in the speaker's mind at the moment of speaking. It is not usually possible for an outsider to predict which form will be used.

Cho7712 · Answer

Thanks for the reply.
And I still am very doubtful of the form of this verb.

If the word 'would' is used to mean "to give opinions that you are not certain about", it is much more likely to take the simple tense resulting in 'would be'.

So why is there 'would have been'?

I think 'would have been' refers to the time span which precedes that of the event described in 'that clause', because 'would have been' is the past perfect tense.
For this reason, I think the meaning of 'would' here as 'for describing a possible action or event that did not in fact happen'

So would you tell me the reason why 'would have been' is used?
And if you don't mind, I will be glad to receive your correction to my thinking.

Fivejedjon · Answer

cho7712Thanks for the reply.And I still am very doubtful of the form of this verb. (1)If the word 'would' is used to mean "to give opinions that you are not certain about", it is much more likely to take the simple tense resulting in 'would be' .So why is there 'would have been'? (2)I think 'would have been' refers to the time span which precedes that of the event described in 'that clause', because 'would have been' is the past perfect tense.For this reason, I think the meaning of 'would' here as 'for describing a possible action or event that did not in fact happen'

It would have been at that time she went to live near Manheim.

1) This depends on what is going through the speaker's mind immediately before the moment of speaking. If the speaker is looking at the situation, or at the time of the situation, as past, then 'would have been' will be used. If the speaker is thinking more of the present state of certainty of these past situations, then 'would be' will be used. There is not a great deal of difference in meaning in practical terms.

''Would have been' is not past perfect. It is modal + perfect infinitive, sometimes referred to as modal perfect.
These forms can convey a number of meanings, some of which can appear contradictory. Context almost always makes the intended meaning clear.

In this case, it has almost certainly been established, in what was said before, that something happened at a past time. In your original sentence, the speaker is expressing near certainty that it was at the time of this previously-mentioned situation that 'she' went to live near Mannheim. The words themselves do not in any way suggest that this did not happen. (In real life of course, it may not have happened - it is possible that the speaker made a mistake. That, however is to do with the speakers's knowledge, not with the meaning of the words.)

In "It would have been difficult if she had not moved to Mannheim", We have a different situation, a counterfactual conditional sentence. Here the situation behind these words is that it was not difficult, because she did move to Mannheim.

Cho7712 · Answer

Thanks for the answer
I, too inclined to the form itself, was on the wrong track.
And the modal perfect is somewhat new to me that I've searched it briefly.
Though it is still not clear to understand the modal perfect, I find that the modal perfect does, to some extent, the same as shown by the general perfect aspect. But, it seems the meaning of each modal that makes the modal perfect unique as well as unconquerable.
That is what I've just realized and what I've understood as to your below remark.

fivejedjonThese forms can convey a number of meanings, some of which can appear contradictory. Context almost always makes the intended meaning clear.

And the interpretation in the case of 'would have been' employed is rather clear, by what I understand, it seems the speaker tries to give an impression of the remoteness from the past to the hearer. The speaker intends to distance himself from what he just now said. (1) Is my thinking right?

Then, here is the second question.

fivejedjonf the speaker is thinking more of the present state of certainty of these past situations, then 'would be' will be used.

I hardly imagine what the situation(i.e. conversation context) could be, corresponding with your upper explanation.
(2)Would you give me an example context?

Fivejedjon · Answer

fivejedjon: the speaker is thinking more of the present state of certainty of these past situations, then 'would be' will be used.

cho7712: I hardly imagine what the situation(i.e. conversation context) could be, corresponding with your upper explanation. Would you give me an example context?
.

I first came to Prague in the year my wife and I separated , That would be in 1998.
I am saying that I am reasonably certain that the year I am now talking about is 1998.

I first came to Prague in the year my wife and I separated. That would have been in 1998.
I am saying that I am reasonably certain that my wife and I separated in 1998.

As I said, the difference in practical terms is pretty small.

meaning

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions