To be VS would be

Question

It was the loss of revenue from declines in tourism that in 1935 led the Saudi authorities to grant a concession for oil exploration to the company later to be known as Aramco.

Guys,

Should n't (to be) be would be ?Is there any difference between to be and would be?

Thanks

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

later to be known as Aramco is a non-finite clause that modifies company.

the company later to be known as Aramco

To use would be (a finite construction) requires a relative pronoun, thus:

the company which would later be known as Aramco

The meaning is the same.

CJ

Pokh · Answer

CalifJimlater to be known as Aramco is a non-finite clause that modifies company.

the company later to be known as Aramco

To use would be (a finite construction) requires a relative pronoun, thus:

the company which would later be known as Aramco

The meaning is the same.

CJ

CJ...

Would is generally used to refer to Future in Past;

TO BE is just an simple infinitive which has no tense at all? So how can the meaning be same? is LATER not redundant if I use would later be?

Thank you

CalifJim · Answer

pokhWould is generally used to refer to Future in Past;
TO BE is just an simple infinitive which has no tense at all? So how can the meaning be same?

The to be does have a certain flavor of future in this context (especially with later) even though technically it has no tense.

For example, we have expressions like bride-to-be for a woman who is soon going to be married.

pokhis LATER not redundant if I use would later be?

I wouldn't call it redundant. It just reinforces the idea of futurity.

CJ

To be VS would be

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions