Both sentences are ambiguous about whether the planned or expected choosing/seeing are still in the future or are now the past. So, the sentences would fit either context. Both these sentences seem slightly awkward to me.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
FandorinI don't think "would" is aprropriate here at all. One of the meanings I see your sentences is that would is similar to used to. But as you know, it is used when action doesn't takes place any longer.
Mr WordyThe first "would" indicates habitual action in the past, which is a perfectly good use but in these particular sentence structures seems slightly awkward to me, especially in the second sentence.That's what I meant here. I took them as a whole structure which doesn't really sound well to both of us. Thanks for your re
FandorinThat's what I meant here.
HSS[1] For five years you would often think they would let you choose anything.I was thinking you could say [1] to mean 'You repeatedly thought they would let you choose anything,' or 'You repeatedly said you would see her again.' Is it maybe also because of 'for five
[2] For the last month you would often say you would see her again.
HSS
I was thinking you could say [1] to mean 'You repeatedly thought they would let you choose anything,' or 'You repeatedly said you would see her again.'
HSS
Is it maybe also because of 'for five years' or ' for the last month' that the sentences sound odd? Does dropping off of the phra
HSSWay back in your childhood, you'd easily think your doting parents would let you do anything, and they actually would. But they were really worried that doing so (instead of "that that") might lead you in the wrong direction (or lead you astray).To those that say the original contexts wre odd, think "second-