0
HSS Posted 17 years ago
Grammar

Time Sequence

Hi

[1] For five years you would often think they would let you choose anything.
[2] For the last month you would often say you would see her again.

I would just like to confirm if this 'would' is interchangeable with 'will' when the actions --- 'their letting you choose anything' and 'your seeing her again' --- haven't been started.

Thanks

Hiro
  

Top answer

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.

  • 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.
  • The following seem better: For five years you thought they would let you choose anything.
  • For the last month you've been saying you would see her again.
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.

11 Answers
0
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. The following seem better:

For five years you thought they would let you choose anything.
For the last month you've been saying you would see her
0
I 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.
0
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.

The second "would" in each sentence is fine. In the second sentence it indicates future-in-the-past. In the first sentence it probably
0
Hi Mr.Wordy. I go along with you.
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
0
FandorinThat's what I meant here.

Sorry Fandorin ... I didn't realise you were only talking about the first "would".
0
Never mind Emotion: smile I hope we will see what the poster makes out of what he wrote himself.
0
HSS[1] For five years you would often think they would let you choose anything.
[2] For the last month you would often say you would see her again.
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
0
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.'


Your logic is correct...
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
0
Hi. Considering your pointers, I've come up with a new text. I'd appreciate it if you would let me know how you like it.

Way back in your childhood, you'd easily think your doting parents would let you do anything, and they'd actually often let you do anything. But they were really worried that might lead you in the wrong way.
0
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-

Related Questions