More than

Question

1) It was more a cry of fear than (a cry of) anger.
Can one leave out (a cry of)? If so, must we include 'that of'?

2) He wished those things were false.
In the present tense, we say: I wish those things were false. The above sentence, on the other hand, is past tense. So must we use 'had been false' instead of 'were false'?

3) It was only a matter of time before they jumped on him.
My confusion here is: do we treat this as tentative and say 'would have jumped' instead of just jumped.

Thanks,
Delta

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

One other thing I forgot to mention regarding #2. He wishes those things would be false. (present tense). Now in the past tense: He wished those things would have been false. (somehow I feel this isn't accurate, and that 'would be' would be correct in both tenses).

Also in #3, suppose I want future-in-past, would it be right to say: ... matter of time before they would jump on him. Does 'would' here serve the same function of will, although in past tense?

Mr Wordy · Answer

1) If you omit "a cry", I personally think it's best to retain "of": "It was more a cry of fear than of anger." However, the sentence still makes sense without "of". "that of" does not work.

2) If he's looking back to facts in his past then you should say: "He wished those things had been false". If he's talking about facts in his present then you can say "He wished those things were false" or "He wished those things had been false".

3) If in the end they did jump on him, you can say "It was only a matter of time before they jumped on him".

"It was only a matter of time before they would have jumped on him" suggests that they would have jumped on him had some condition been satisfied, but, actually, they didn't (or it's unknown or unstated whether they did).

"It was only a matter of time before they would jump on him." can be used in both senses.

AnonymousOne other thing I forgot to mention regarding #2. He wishes those things would be false. (present tense).

Normally you would say "He wishes those things were false."

AnonymousAlso in #3, suppose I want future-in-past, would it be right to say: ... matter of time before they would jump on him. Does 'would' here serve the same function of will, although in past tense?

Yes.

Anonymous · Answer

Thank you very much, Mr. Wordy. Just a few clarifications, if you don't mind.

Mr Wordy If he's talking about facts in his present then you can say "He wished those things were false" or "He wished those things had been false".

What if he's speculating about the future - then I presume 'would be' is correct? For instance: He knew for sure that X was true. Still, he wished X would be false. I am assuming only 'would be' works in this case because even though the sentence is past tense, he is speculating over the future.

Mr Wordy"It was only a matter of time before they would have jumped on him" suggests that they would have jumped on him had some condition been satisfied, but, actually, they didn't (or it's unknown or unstated whether they did).

I think I get it. So normally we write would have/could have etc. only when it is tentative or when there is a condition to be fulfilled. Otherwise, in any past tense, would/could will suffice. It was only a matter of time before they would jump on him (if past tense) or it is only a matter of time before they will jump on him (if present). I am hoping this is correct understanding.

Mr Wordy · Answer

AnonymousWhat if he's speculating about the future - then I presume 'would be' is correct? For instance: He knew for sure that X was true. Still, he wished X would be false. I am assuming only 'would be' works in this case because even though the sentence is past tense, he is speculating over the future.

The idea is right; for example, you can say "He wished his mother would come", "He wished the weather would improve", etc, to express a past wish about an event which was, at that time, in the future. However, I don't find "He wished X would be false" very natural in that meaning. The problem is that "true" and "false" seem to be "eternal" qualities. It is not so usual to wish for a future change in something's truth value. It is more usual to lament that the fact that the truth value is the way it is.

AnonymousSo normally we write would have/could have etc. only when it is tentative or when there is a condition to be fulfilled. Otherwise, in any past tense, would/could will suffice.

I'd be hesitant to agree with a general statement of this nature without doing a lot of research. It is hard to immediately think of all the circumstances in which these words can be used.

CalifJim · Answer

Anonymous1) It was more a cry of fear than (a cry of) anger.
Can one leave out (a cry of)? If so, must we include 'that of'?

No. "that of" is only used to recall a definite noun phrase followed by of, i.e., with "the".

It was more the cry of fear than that of anger that bothered us.

With an indefinite noun phrase use "one of" if you need to recall the noun.

It was more a cry of fear than one of anger.

However, as pointed out above, you can sometimes omit the pronoun completely.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

Mr WordyI'd be hesitant to agree with a general statement of this nature without doing a lot of research. It is hard to immediately think of all the circumstances in which these words can be used.

Thanks again, Mr. Wordy, I understand. I'll just give one small example to make sure my understanding is correct. Before he could raise his voice, she left. (1)
Before he could have raised his voice, she left. (2)
In (1), 'could' serves the same function as 'was able to'/the past tense of can. But (2) is also right in that he could have raised his voice and the only reason he didn't was because she had already left. So both (1) and (2) are okay with past tense. She left before he could have responded. She left before he could respond. And so forth.

Thanks,
Delta

Anonymous · Answer

Oops, forgot one other thing. I am also assuming that adding 'had' as in 'before he could have responded, she had left' is correct. Because we normally say: he could have responded if she had not left etc.

English 1b3 · Answer

CalifJimNo. "that of" is only used to recall a definite noun phrase followed by of, i.e., with "the".

It was more the cry of fear than that of anger that bothered us.

With an indefinite noun phrase use "one of" if you need to recall the noun.

It was more a cry of fear than one of anger.

However, as pointed out above, you can sometimes omit the pronoun completely.

[Y]

Re the bold, do we only use these pronouns in place of the noun when 'of' follows?

Thanks

Mr Wordy · Answer

AnonymousBefore he could raise his voice, she left. (1)
Before he could have raised his voice, she left. (2)

In (1), 'could' serves the same function as 'was able to'/the past tense of can.Correct.
AnonymousBut (2) is also right in that he could have raised his voice and the only reason he didn't was because she had already left.
To me, (2) seems an odd thing to say. A more likely example might be "I left before he could have seen me". This means "It was not possible for him to have seen me before I left". By that token, your (2) should mean "It was not possible for him to have raised his voice before I left", but you'd never really want to say that.

Neither this "before he could have" construction nor your original "before they would have" are very common, and if you start spraying them around ad lib you probably risk generating unnatural English.
AnonymousOops, forgot one other thing. I am also assuming that adding 'had' as in 'before he could have responded, she had left' is correct.
Again, the example sentence seems odd to me (with or without "had"). Going back to my example, "I had left before he could have seen me" seems overly convoluted to me, as if we're trying to make the poor sentence do too much.

CalifJim · Answer

English 1b3do we only use these pronouns in place of the noun when 'of' follows?

No. It just so happens that examples with "of" have been appearing quite often lately on the forum, and "of" is probably by far the most commonly used preposition in this pattern.

CJ

Come to think of it, "the one" is the usual substitute when "of" doesn't follow:

The window in the hall is bigger than [*that / the one] in the kitchen.

So your hypothesis that only "of" is used in that situation is beginning to sound plausible.

CJ

More than

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions