Meaning of "may have moved"
I found the following sentence from one of a videos I watched. I got two questions while I hearing that. Firstly, we often use apostrophe + s to indicate someones possessions but not things belong to non-living things. However, in this sentence, they have used "city's" to indicate inhabitants of the city. If I had written that sentence, I would have written "residents of the city" instead.
My second question is whey they have used "may have" + past participle without any conditional statements. Though, I know it is feasible to remove the if clause when we can understand it from the context, there is no any such things in the sentence. Furthermore, I would really appreciate it if someone could let me know is there any other circumstance in which we can use "would/might/may have + past participle" without third conditional statements.
The sentence:-
Without its crucial source of water the city's residents may have moved away.
Reference:-
Top answer
dileepa Firstly, we often use apostrophe + s to indicate someone ' s possessions but not things that belong to non-living things. Correct. This is the usual pattern, but it's not absolutely required in all cases.
- dileepa Firstly, we often use apostrophe + s to indicate someone ' s possessions but not things that belong to non-living things.
- Correct.
- This is the usual pattern, but it's not absolutely required in all cases.
- dileepa However, in this sentence, they have used "city's" to indicate inhabitants of the city.
- Yes, as if the residents "belong" to the city.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
dileepaFirstly, we often use apostrophe + s to indicate someone's possessions but not things that belong to non-living things.
Correct. This is the usual pattern, but it's not absolutely required in all cases.
dileepaHowever, in this sentence,
0
Related Questions