0
Behnazzz Posted 20 years ago
Vocabulary

question

water would have flowed out to the sea.

water have flowed outto the sea.

Hi i want to know the diference in thoses two sentences? would have and have
  

Top answer

It should be "has" in your second example: "water" is the subject, and in the singular. The difference I see is that in (1) the water didn't actually flow to the sea, but in (2) it did. I'm sure others will add more comments...

— Pieanne

  • It should be "has" in your second example: "water" is the subject, and in the singular.
  • The difference I see is that in (1) the water didn't actually flow to the sea, but in (2) it did.
  • I'm sure others will add more comments...
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.

4 Answers
0
It should be "has" in your second example: "water" is the subject, and in the singular.

The difference I see is that in (1) the water didn't actually flow to the sea, but in (2) it did. I'm sure others will add more comments...
0
0
I agree with you, Pienna. In my country, there is a folksong:

Water has flowed to the source

Leaves fall to the root

Root and source are the symbols of origin

I think we can substitue 'sea' by 'river'.

Phuong Ninh
0
0
PhuongninhbaoI think we can substitue 'sea' by 'river'.

Phuong Ninh

Yes, though, of course, it depends on the context.
0
0
Additionally:

1. If we had opened the sluice gates, the water would have flowed out to the sea.

— the water didn't flow out to the sea. This is an imaginary scenario set in the past.

2. When they opened the sluice gates, the water would have flowed out to the sea.

— the speaker thinks it is fair to assume that when they opened the gates, the water flowed out to
0

Related Questions