0
Anonymous Posted 16 years ago
Grammar
Would rage for years/would be raging for years
For the thick-skinned lawyers, the surprise was received, absorbed, then shaken off as instinctively as a duck shakes off water. They were about to get rich. Their clients were heavily in debt with no relief in sight. They had no choice but to contest the will. Litigation would rage for years.
Source: Testament, John Grisham
Hi, I'd like to know if it is correct to use "would be raging for years" instead of " would rage for years". "For years" implies that the action is over a period and I thought that continuous tense "raging" may work. What's your take? Thanks~
Source: Testament, John Grisham
Hi, I'd like to know if it is correct to use "would be raging for years" instead of " would rage for years". "For years" implies that the action is over a period and I thought that continuous tense "raging" may work. What's your take? Thanks~
Top answer
Both forms are fine, with no difference in meaning. The progressive is a slightly more emphatic form here.
- Both forms are fine, with no difference in meaning.
- The progressive is a slightly more emphatic form here.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
2 Answers
0
Both forms are fine, with no difference in meaning. The progressive is a slightly more emphatic form here.
00
You could change it to "would be raging for years," if you were trying to emphasize the ongoing nature of it. For example, you might say, "The litigation would be raging for years while both families found themselves sinking further and further into poverty and losing sight of what their original intentions were in fighting the case."
0
Related Questions