0
Pooyan Posted 14 years ago
Grammar

"would never see" vs "never sees"

I'd appreciate it if you could explain the difference between these two:

"He burned the letters so that his wife would never see them"

"He burned the letters so that his wife never sees them"
  

Top answer

The first is an example of "a future in the past". "would " is basically "will" backshifted to match "burned" (the reference time point is the time of burning the letters). He burned the letters.

— Ivanhr

  • The first is an example of "a future in the past".
  • "would " is basically "will" backshifted to match "burned" (the reference time point is the time of burning the letters).
  • He burned the letters.
  • As a result of that, his wife will never see them.
  • (said at the moment of burning the letters) The second sentence means exactly the same thing but the reference time point is now .
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.

20 Answers
0
The first is an example of "a future in the past". "would " is basically "will" backshifted to match "burned" (the reference time point is the time of burning the letters).

He burned the letters. As a result of that, his wife will never see them. (said at the moment of burning the letters)

The second sentence means exactly the same thing but the reference time point is now
0
0
Thanks for your reply. but what you mean by reference time point? Is it the time of speech?
0
0
PooyanIs it the time of speech?
No, it's the time at which the speaker puts himself mentally.
0
0
and in this sentence:

"He burned the letters so that his wife will never see them."

How does it imply that his wife may see the letters only in the future. The sentence doesn't clearly say "so that his wife will never see them"
0
0
PooyanHow does it imply that his wife may see the letters only in the future. The sentence doesn't clearly say "so that his wife will never see them"
If he hadn't burned the letters (in the past) , his wife would be able to see the letters in the future. Since he burned the letters in the past , his wife won't be able to see them in the future. (I merely wante
0
0
but now that doesn't mean the same as the first two sentences? The first two also say that since he burned the letters in the past, she won't be able to see them in the future, don't they?
0
0
These are the correct patterns for "so that".

... burns ... so that ... will ... [will is the future of the present]
... burned ... so that ... would ... [would is the future of the past]

X marks present time.
Y marks a time point in the past.

...........Y...............................X.....................................
..................................
0
0
Pooyanbut now that doesn't mean the same as the first two sentences? The first two also say that since he burned the letters in the past, she won't be able to see them in the future, don't they?
Yes, that's correct. But mine is different. It suggests that his wife will be here in the future (but is not here now) but won't be able to see the letters (because t
0
0
Thanks CalifJim for your detailed response. But your explanation means

I hoped/thought/knew that you get better soon.

might be incorrect?
0
0
Pooyanyour explanation means

I hoped/thought/knew that you get better soon.

might be incorrect?
Sorry, but there is no "might be" about it! Those are incorrect!

CJ
0

Related Questions