We wouldn't introduce a larger display until we (could/can) make one that (was/is) great.

Question

An Apple's senior VP has said this in a promotional video of iPhone 6:

The way people experience their iPhone has always started with the display. So we wouldn't introduce a larger display until we could make one that was great. The Retina HD Display is the most advanced iPhone display we've ever designed. On this high resolution screen you could see deeper blacks and sharper text.

In the second sentence, do the tenses of "could" and "was" have to be in the past? Or is it also possible to change the tenses like these?
(1) So we wouldn't introduce a larger display until we can make one that is great.
(2) So we wouldn't introduce a larger display until we could make one that is great.

GPY · Accepted Answer

No, they don't sound right.

"So we won't introduce a larger display until we can make one that is great" is correct English, but this implies that it hasn't happened yet, so does not fit your situation.

JungKim · Answer

Thanks, GPY.

You seem to say that the three verbs should be either all in the present tense (won't/can/is) or in the past (wouldn't/could/was).

The last verb (was) in the past tense sounded to me like the display they could make was great at the time of making but is not necessarily great at the time of speaking. But they couldn't have meant that. So I wanted to change it to the present tense (is). And I'm still wondering what's wrong with the present tense (is).

GPY · Answer

It is most natural at that point in the sentence to describe the qualities of the screen immediately after the time of making, especially since "great" is the goal or result of "make". Saying "was" doesn't imply that it isn't still great. Compare with "we kept working until it was complete". It's still complete now, but in this sentence we're interested in its state when we stopped working. In fact, the tenses in your sentence are probably not intended as true past tense, but instead probably refer to a hypothetical time. It is common in English for hypothetical or imagined actions to be described using "past tense" forms.

JungKim · Answer

GPYIt is most natural at that point in the sentence to describe the qualities of the screen immediately after the time of making, especially since "great" is the goal or result of "make". Saying "was" doesn't imply that it isn't still great. Compare with "we kept working until it was complete". It's still complete now, but in this sentence we're interested in its state when we stopped working.

If the goal of "make" being "great" remains the same, which it does in the most natural interpretation of the text, shouldn't you use "is" instead of "was"?

The example "we kept working until it was complete" is not applicable, IMHO, to "we could make one that was great", because the former is an adverbial clause whereas the latter an adjectival clause. Maybe your example is applicable to "we wouldn't introduce a larger display until we could make one".

That said, aligning all the verbs in a single tense (either past or present) is easy to follow, so I wish there were such an easy rule. The problem with it is the fact that I've been noticing instances where such an alignment of tense is not always applicable to some adjective clauses (relative clauses).

Case in point: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/152339/what-would-be-the-difference-between-past-and-present-tense-here

GPY · Answer

JungKimIf the goal of "make" being "great" remains the same, which it does in the most natural interpretation of the text, shouldn't you use "is" instead of "was"?

The focus of "make" is on "make for the first time"; i.e. the first time they make it, that is the achievement. Thereafter it is routine. Also, remember that it is probably hypothetical time, not real time.

JungKimThe example "we kept working until it was complete" is not applicable, IMHO, to "we could make one that was great", because the former is an adverbial clause whereas the latter an adjectival clause.

It was intended to show the general reasoning behind using "was" in an easier-to-see context

JungKimThe problem with it is the fact that I've been noticing instances where such an alignment of tense is not always applicable to some adjective clauses (relative clauses).

In cases like yours, aligning tenses often produces a more elegant sentence. However, in practice, native speakers not infrequently violate this "rule", perhaps sometimes for a reason, other times just because of carelessness.

JungKim · Answer

GPYAlso, remember that it is probably hypothetical time, not real time.

As I understand it, the past tense of "wouldn't" in "we wouldn't introduce a larger display" is real-time past in that Apple once wouldn't introduce a larger display even when other smartphone manufacturers came up with a larger display. I'm not sure what you mean by "hypothetical time".

Could you please elaborate on this?

GPYIn cases like yours, aligning tenses often produces a more elegant sentence. However, in practice, native speakers not infrequently violate this "rule", perhaps sometimes for a reason, other times just because of carelessness.

Like I said, I would love to know such a rule, 'cause aligning all the tenses of whatever subordinate clauses in a single tense would be so much easier for me than having to figure out the "right" tense for each and every subordinate clause. And now the easier work produces a more elegant sentence? What's not to like?

And I wouldn't really care about native speakers being sloppy and failing to use the single tense throughout the entire sentence.

Still, you say that there are times when native speakers use different tenses "for a reason". In other words, using different tenses in subordinate clauses is justified. In these cases, using a single tense might not result in a correct sentence, much less "a more elegant sentence."

So the question is how do I know whether a particular case I'm dealing with falls under the general rule of aligning in a single tense and getting a correct sentence, on the one hand, or it falls under the exception of having to opt for a different tense "for a reason", on the other hand?

GPY · Answer

JungKimAs I understand it, the past tense of "wouldn't" in "we wouldn't introduce a larger display" is real-time past in that Apple once wouldn't introduce a larger display even when other smartphone manufacturers came up with a larger display. I'm not sure what you mean by "hypothetical time". Could you please elaborate on this?

The relevant sense of the word "would" introduces a description of a hypothetical situation, e.g. "I wouldn't steal unless I felt desperate". Such imagined situations do not exist in real time but in hypothetical time. The "past tense" form is typically used in such situations to describe things that happen in hypothetical time. Even though Apple's "great" display has now actually been developed (so I understand), the sentence that you quote still has a flavour of talking about what would or would not happen in a hypothetical situation.

JungKimSo the question is how do I know whether a particular case I'm dealing with falls under the general rule of aligning in a single tense and getting a correct sentence, on the one hand, or it falls under the exception of having to opt for a different tense "for a reason", on the other hand?

I'm afraid I do not have an easy answer to that question. I cannot offhand think of a relevant case where it would be wrong to align the tenses, though, as mentioned, exceptions are often encountered in real language use.

JungKim · Answer

GPYI'm afraid I do not have an easy answer to that question. I cannot offhand think of a relevant case where it would be wrong to align the tenses, though, as mentioned, exceptions are often encountered in real language use.

Are all such exceptional cases in real language use limited to an adjectival subordinate clause (e.g., relative clause)?

We wouldn't introduce a larger display until we (could/can) make one that (was/is) great.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions