Meaning of contractions: he'll and he'd

Question

I am doing an application task for a teacher training course (Cambridge CELTA)
Of of the tasks is to explain the difference between:

If he works hard, he'll pass the exam.
If he worked hard, he'd pass the exam.
My suggestions:
The contraction "he'll" means "he will" . So the first sentence says basically that he hasn't passed the exam yet, but he will pass it sometime in the future if he works hard.

The contraction "he'd" can generally mean two things: he had or he would. In this context it means "If he worked hard, he would pass the exam." In this context he failed the exam because he didn't work hard enough.
Some comments: I am certain that my first explanation is correct. But I am not certain about the second.
Look at this sentence: If he had worked hard, he would have pass the exam. This sentence means that he failed the exam because he didn't work hard. Right?
But the sentence above, this one: If he worked hard, he'd pass the exam.
Does it have the same meaning, as I believe, or I am completely wrong?

I am a non-native English speaker and the use of modal contractions sometimes confuse me. I definitely need to to do some serious study on these if I am accepted on the course
I would appreciate any help
Thanks
Bjorn

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]I am doing an application task for a teacher training course (Cambridge CELTA) Of of the tasks is to explain ... that he hasn't passed the exam yet, but he will pass it sometime in the future if he works hard.[/nq]
Correct. Optimism about future events is implied.
[nq:1]The contraction "he'd" can generally mean two things: he had or he would. In this context it means "If he worked hard, he would pass the exam." In this context he failed the exam because he didn't work hard enough.[/nq]
No. The situation is hypothetical, not historical. Pessimism about future events is implied.
[nq:1]Some comments: I am certain that my first explanation is correct. But I am not certain about the second. Look ... he would have pass the exam. This sentence means that he failed the exam because he didn't work hard. Right?[/nq]
Right. But please put the -ed ending on pass to make the past conditional.
[nq:1]But the sentence above, this one: If he worked hard, he'd pass the exam. Does it have the same meaning, as I believe, or I am completely wrong?[/nq]
The sequence "If verbed, then would verb" is hypothetical. The sequence "If had verbed, then would have verbed" is historical. Discontent or disgust with past events is implied.
[nq:1]I am a non-native English speaker and the use of modal contractions sometimes confuse me. I definitely need to to do some serious study on these if I am accepted on the course I would appreciate any help[/nq]
You're no worse off than 95% (and growing) of the native speaking population. Over the past fifteen years I have seen major erosion in the use of proper sequencing of tenses, even by many persons who should know better. Good luck, Bjorn!
Mr. Jaggers

Usenet · Answer

so "If he worked hard, he'd pass the exam." means " If he worked hard, he had pass the exam."
That is; he didn't work hard, so he failed the exam

Or shouldn't it be: If he had worked hard, he had pass the exam." I am still a bit confused
Bjorn

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]so "If he worked hard, he'd pass the exam." means " If he worked hard, he had pass the exam."[/nq]
No. If he worked hard, he would pass the exam. "If verb-ed, then would verb" is the paradigm.
[nq:1]That is; he didn't work hard, so he failed the exam[/nq]
No. "If he worked hard, he would pass the exam" contains a hypothetical (not representing reality) and suggests what WOULD happen under the conditions mentioned, namely, his hard work.
[nq:1]Or shouldn't it be: If he had worked hard, he had pass the exam." I am still a bit confused[/nq]
No. That sentence cannot exist.
Here are the three paradigms to follow in If-then sentences:

If VERB, then WILL VERB.
If VERBED, then WOULD VERB.
If HAD VERBED, then WOULD HAVE VERBED.
or
If PRESENT TENSE then FUTURE TENSE.
If IMPERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE then CONDITIONAL MOOD.
If PAST PERFECT (PLUPERFECT) then PAST CONDITIONAL MOOD.

I remain at your service.
Mr. Jaggers

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]If he works hard, he'll pass the exam. If he worked hard, he'd pass the exam.[/nq]
If he works or worked hard he'll pass the exam because he has that ability.
If he worked or works hard he could, would and maybe even should, pass the exam but it is by no means certain.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Of of the tasks is to explain the difference between: . . . If he works hard, he'll pass the ... worked hard, he would pass the exam." In this context he failed the exam because he didn't work hard enough.[/nq]
You correctly approach the task in two stages:

1. Expansion to grammatical writing of oralcontractions, he'll and he'd.

2. Conventional parsing of the verbs in eachcase, with one eye on English conventions for
conditional sentences like these.
The two are obviously related because case 2
tells you semantically that he'd cannot mean he had. "He had pass" is not a permissible form of the verb.

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Of of the tasks is to explain the difference between: ... he failed the exam because he didn't work hard enough.[/nq]
[nq:1]The two are obviously related because case 2 tells you semantically that he'd cannot mean he had. "He had pass" is not a permissible form of the verb.[/nq]
I agree with Don. Put simply, "he'd" means "he would" if the phrase is completed by the infinitive form of the following verb; it means "he had" if the phrase is completed by the past participle. You can't correctly say *"he had pass" or *"he would passed". In "he'd have passed', the following verb form is the infinitive of the auxiliary "have"; therefore the contaction stands for "he would have passed".

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]You're no worse off than 95% (and growing) of the native speaking population. Over the past fifteen years I have seen major erosion in the use of proper sequencing of tenses, even by many persons who should know better. Good luck, Bjorn![/nq]
I'll second that. My heart sinks every time I see Bjorn's sentences (not by Bjorn) written as:
I studied, so I should of passed the exam.
If he would of studied he would of passed the exam.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]so "If he worked hard, he'd pass the exam." means " If he worked hard, he had pass the exam."[/nq]
As Mr. say, "he'd" in this sentence means "he would".

But more importantly, more generally, one cannot say "he had pass the exam" in any situation. It is "he had passED". If there is a helping verb, an auxiliary verb, like has, have, had, having, was, were, am, are, is, that is followed by the the past particple of the verb, the third principle part. "Pass" is a regular verb, and it's principle parts are pass, passed, passed. The third principle part is "passed". So if you wanted to say what you have above, it would have to be "he had passed".
For irregular verbs and there are maybe 100 of them (although only 20 or 30 that are used all the time), you have to memorize the 3 principle parts. Quite a few native speakers don't bother to do this lately, and it shows in all the mistakes they make. For example, go, went, gone, and yet the latest horrendous expression I hear a lot of is "he had went". That's just as bad as "he had pass".
[nq:1]That is; he didn't work hard, so he failed the exam Or shouldn't it be: If he had worked hard, he had pass the exam." I am still a bit confused Bjorn[/nq]
Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I am doing an application task for a teacher training course (Cambridge CELTA) Of of the tasks is to explain the difference between: If he works hard, he'll (he will) pass the exam. If he worked hard, he'd (he would) pass the exam.Also note:[/nq]
If he works hard, he can pass the exam.
If he worked hard, he could pass the exam.
It's pairs of sentences like this that make it seem sometimes that would is the past tense of will (and that could is the past tense of can). That's not the case, I guess, but I'm not sure it wouldn't help to think of it that way.
[nq:1]My suggestions: The contraction "he'll" means "he will" . So the first sentence says basically that he hasn't passed the ... not certain about the second. Look at this sentence: If he had worked hard, he would have pass the exam.[/nq]
He would have passED the exam. That is, it's very likely he would have. Of course he might be sick that day, or something else might cause him not to pass.
[nq:1]This sentence means that he failed the exam because he didn't work hard. Right?[/nq]
Yes. Presumably the person who says this knows that he wasn't sick, etc. and is pretty sure he didn't work hard. If not, he is jumping to a conclusion, but otoh, if the person has a history of not working hard, it's not a big jump.
[nq:1]But the sentence above, this one: If he worked hard, he'd pass the exam. Does it have the same meaning, as I believe, or I am completely wrong?[/nq]
Very close, logically, which is what you're looking at. Maybe there is some difference in time perspective. For example, if the other verbs in the paragraph are in the past tense, it might sound better if this sentence is written in the past tense also.
[nq:1]I am a non-native English speaker and the use of modal contractions sometimes confuse me. I definitely need to to do some serious study on these if I am accepted on the course I would appreciate any help Thanks Bjorn[/nq]
Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]so "If he worked hard, he'd pass the exam." means " If he worked hard, he had pass the exam."[/nq]
[nq:1]As Mr. say, "he'd" in this sentence means "he would". But more importantly, more generally, one cannot say "he had ... latest horrendous expression I hear a lot of is "he had went". That's just as bad as "he had pass".[/nq]
But not as bad as "I seen."
Mr. Jaggers

Meaning of contractions: he'll and he'd

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions