0
Pructus Posted 12 years ago
Grammar
Will have PP
Hello, dear members and Gurus!!
Cambridge grammar of English language states that the “would have become” in a. is to be understood to inlcude the future time, and the “will have become” in b. doesn’t include the present and the future, only the past.
Any plausible explanation?
And, we need to understand that in a., we know that he didn’t stay in the army and in b., we don’t know if he sayed in the army in the past?
*********************************
a. If he had stayed in the army he would have become a colonel.
b. If he stayed in the army he will have become a colonel.
Cambridge grammar of English language states that the “would have become” in a. is to be understood to inlcude the future time, and the “will have become” in b. doesn’t include the present and the future, only the past.
Any plausible explanation?
And, we need to understand that in a., we know that he didn’t stay in the army and in b., we don’t know if he sayed in the army in the past?
*********************************
a. If he had stayed in the army he would have become a colonel.
b. If he stayed in the army he will have become a colonel.
Top answer
pructus Cambridge grammar of English language That book is a maze; I cannot use it. pructus a. If he had stayed in the army he would have become a colonel.
- pructus Cambridge grammar of English language That book is a maze; I cannot use it.
- pructus a.
- If he had stayed in the army he would have become a colonel.
- That refers to a false future construct that is not a real future—that's how I see it.
- pructus b.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
5 Answers
0
pructusCambridge grammar of English languageThat book is a maze; I cannot use it.
pructusa. If he had stayed in the army he would have become a colonel.That refers to a false future construct that is not a real future—that's how I see it.
pructusb. If he stayed in the army he will have become a colo
00
Here's the full wording of what the book says... (p 204)
[63]
i If he had stayed in the army he would have become a colonel. [remote]
ii If he stayed in the army he will have become a colonel. [open]
In [ii] the possible staying in the army and the consequential becoming a colonel are in past time, whereas in only the form
[63]
i If he had stayed in the army he would have become a colonel. [remote]
ii If he stayed in the army he will have become a colonel. [open]
In [ii] the possible staying in the army and the consequential becoming a colonel are in past time, whereas in only the form
00
Thanks a lot, Mister Micawber for the clear explanations!!
And for the reference, I included the full wording of the part in the book as a reply to your posting.
And for the reference, I included the full wording of the part in the book as a reply to your posting.
00
pructusii If he stayed in the army he will have become a colonel. [open]Ah, now I get it: the speaker simply doesn't know whether the man stayed in the army and became a colonel. It is merely a considered opinion. In i, the speaker knows the man left the army.
00
Related Questions