Was to ...... by

Question

Hi,If "He was to die in 1940."is to:"He died in 1940."then is:"He was to flourish into one of Hollywood's brightest stars by the 1940s."to"He had flourished into one of Hollywood's brightest stars by the 1940s."?Thank you.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

SuperESLHi,If "He was to die in 1940."is to:"He died in 1940."then is:"He was to flourish into one of Hollywood's brightest stars by the 1940s."to"He had flourished into one of Hollywood's brightest stars by the 1940s."?Thank you.

I'm not sure what your question is, particularly the sentences you introduce, for some reason, with the word "to".

Anyway, such sentences as He was to die in 1940 are told from the all-seeing eye of the author in present time, who knows what "his" future looks like in the past (even though "he" doesn't). Also, He would die in 1940 or, to be more mundane, He was going to die in 1940.

So these indicate the future of the past. by the 1940s is not treated any differently than in 1940, so I don't know how you got the past perfect in that last sentence.

CJ

SuperESL · Answer

Say I do want to write from the all-seeing eye of the author in present time.

Is then "He was to flourish into one of Hollywood's brightest stars by the 1940s" acceptable?

Also, if I am writing from an omniscient perspective, what difference does it make whether I use "he was to" or "he would" or "he was going to"?

Thank you.

CalifJim · Answer

SuperESLSay I do want to write from the all-seeing eye of the author in present time.Is then "He was to flourish into one of Hollywood's brightest stars by the 1940s" acceptable?

Yes, it's fine. Perfect.

SuperESLAlso, if I am writing from an omniscient perspective, what difference does it make whether I use "he was to" or "he would" or "he was going to"?

It depends how "high" a style you want. They are listed in order from classiest to most ordinary.

CJ

SuperESL · Answer

Thank you very much.

Just to follow up my original post:

I was wondering, if I am to adopt the all-seeing point of view and rewrite this sentence - "He had flourished into one of Hollywood's brightest stars by the 1940s" - accordingly, whether "He was to flourish into one of Hollywood's brightest stars by the 1940s" would be right.

What prompted my uncertainty is my thinking that if the all-seeing-writer version of "he died in 1940" (simple past tense) is "he was to die in 1940," then perhaps the past perfect tense in "he had flourished into....." should be reflected in some way in the all-seeing-writer version of the sentence (i.e. rather than simply "he was to flourish into......").

Hope I am making sense.

Thank you.

Clive · Answer

A small note.

To me, 'flourish into' sounds a bit odd.
I'd consider
eg flourish and become

Clive

SuperESL · Answer

Thank you for your advice. I suppose, alternatively, I can also consider "blossom into."

(1) "He was to become the president in 1940."
(2) "He was to become the president by 1940."

Is it correct to say that while the first example states categorically that the guy was elected president in 1940, the second example merely says that he was president in 1940, and that it is possible that he got elected before 1940?

Thanks.

CalifJim · Answer

SuperESLthe all-seeing point of view

This is perhaps a misnomer. At least I believe you are taking it in a way that is different from how I meant it. I meant the viewpoint of someone who knows what the future of a past situation will eventually be, even though that future situation is still in the past from the point of view of the time that the sentence is written or uttered.

SuperESLrewrite this sentence - "He had flourished into one of Hollywood's brightest stars by the 1940s"

There may be a misunderstanding here. I had no intention of saying that the sentence with "was to" was in any way a "rewrite" of the sentence with "had", the past perfect, above. The two constructions are distinctly different in the way they place events in time. See below.

SuperESLif the all-seeing-writer version of "he died in 1940" (simple past tense) is "he was to die in 1940," then perhaps the past perfect tense in "he had flourished into....." should be reflected in some way in the all-seeing-writer version of the sentence (i.e. rather than simply "he was to flourish into......").

The past perfect is the past of the past, whereas the "was to" construction (and its equivalents, discussed earlier) is the future of the past. Thus, in both cases, the reference time is something in the past.

...................................................reference time ....................................
........... past of the past .................... past .................. future of the past
... 'had been married in 1932' ...... 'It was1940' .......... 'was to die in 1953'

Your two sentences both report the same fact. They are merely placing the event of becoming a star in a different temporal relationship by assuming two different reference points. I'll simplify your sentences below for purposes of illustration. Note the difference in reference times.

.................................................reference time ....................................
........... past of the past .................. past .................. future of the past
...................................................... [1950] ..........................................
'had become a star by 1940'< < <
__________________________

.................................................reference time ....................................
........... past of the past .................. past .................. future of the past
...................................................... [1930] ..........................................
............................................................... > > > 'was to become a star by 1940'

CJ

Was to ...... by

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions