Would not depart
Hi
Does "would" mean "refuse" or "habitual action in the past" or something else?
"This gentleman would not depart from the gambling table for hours on end."
Top answer
Technically, it's ambiguous, but as a native speaker I instinctively interpret it as habitual action in the past. I believe it's the "for hours on end" that steers me in that direction. Refusing isn't the kind of thing that normally happens for hours.
- Technically, it's ambiguous, but as a native speaker I instinctively interpret it as habitual action in the past.
- I believe it's the "for hours on end" that steers me in that direction.
- Refusing isn't the kind of thing that normally happens for hours.
- CJ
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
Technically, it's ambiguous, but as a native speaker I instinctively interpret it as habitual action in the past. I believe it's the "for hours on end" that steers me in that direction. Refusing isn't the kind of thing that normally happens for hours.
CJ
0Because it says "for hours on end", we know it is habitual action in the past. Without that phrase it could also mean refusal.
0
Related Questions