'would' time expressed

Question

1) Are these sentences different in terms of the time the verbs express?

2) Could you please briefly tell me the difference? (I have an idea, but need a bit of help

)

Thank you.

a) The dog saw the cat, and he barked. He ran down the driveway and jumped on the cat’s back. The cat howled and slapped at the dog. The poor old dog got a big scratch on his nose and raced back home

b) The dog saw the cat, and he would bark. He ran down the driveway and jumped on the cat’s back. The cat howled and slapped at the dog. The poor old dog got a big scratch on his nose and would race back home

c) The dog saw the cat, and he later barked. He ran down the driveway and jumped on the cat’s back. The cat howled and slapped at the dog. The poor old dog got a big scratch on his nose and later raced back home

Clive · Accepted Answer

Hi,

Let me offer some general comments about this kind of use of 'would'.

It is used to refer to habits, repeated actions, in the past.

eg When I was a boy, I would go to the park every day. I would climb trees, and I would throw sticks into the lake.

The later repetitions of 'would' can often be avoided, as the first 'would' indicates to the reader that you are going to speak of past habits.

eg When I was a boy, I would go to the park every day. I climbed trees, and I threw sticks into the lake.

Now please consider your previou post, and then ask any questions that you still need help with.

Best wishes, Clive

English 1b3 · Answer

Thanks, Clive

Could you please tell me why 'would' is referring to past habits and not to 'future in the past'?

I thought it may have been the same as 'was going to': The dog saw the cat, and he was going to bark

Clive · Answer

Hi,

Could you please tell me why 'would' is referring to past habits and not to 'future in the past'?

I thought it may have been the same as 'was going to': The dog saw the cat, and he was going to bark

The word 'would' can be used in various ways.

Here's the idea of 'future in the past', in the form of an example.

When it's 2005, you think "I will buy a car next year (ie in 2006)".

In 2010, you say "In 2005, I thought I would buy a car in 2006".

Note the similarity to reported speech.

'Would' for past habits is similar to 'used to'.

eg When I was a boy, I would swim in the lake.

eg When I was a boy, I used to swim in the lake.

Clive

English 1b3 · Answer

Clive Here's the idea of 'future in the past', in the form of an example.

When it's 2005, you think "I will buy a car next year (ie in 2006)".

In 2010, you say "In 2005, I thought I would buy a car in 2006".

Note the similarity to reported speech.

Sorry, but I still can't see why it could not be future in the past:

The dog saw the cat, and he would bark.

In 2010, you say "In 2005, I thought I would buy a car in 2006".

In 2010, you say "at 2 pm, The dog saw the cat, and he would bark at 2.30"

Can you explain please?

Clive · Answer

Hi,

The dog saw the cat, and he would bark.

Please try explaining to me what you mean by this.

eg

Last Friday at 4pm, the dog saw the cat.

What happened next?

Clive

English 1b3 · Answer

I'm sorry, what would you like me to explain?

He killed three people. He would kill again.

This above is another example given by an expert of future in the past. I don't see how this is different from my example. I'm not saying you're wrong (because I assume you are right), just that I don't see the difference.

Thanks

Clive · Answer

Hi,

He killed three people. He would kill again. Oh, I see what you are talking about. Yes, this is certainly OK. It shows that the writer knows what will happen in the past at a later time. It's not even a prediction, because the writer is telling us that it will for sure happen.

A key point here is that the second event does not happen immediately.

eg He kills 2 people 1 miniute apart.

Just say 'He killed Tom and then he killed Mary.

eg He kills 2 people, 2 years apart.

Now it seems reasonable to say 'He killed Tom, and would kill again'.

The result of using 'would' is that the reader's attention still stays focused on the time of the first action. It doesn't really shift to the time of the second action.

This above is another example given by an expert of future in the past. I don't see how this is different from my example. I'm not saying you're wrong (because I assume you are right), just that I don't see the difference.

So, let me consider your following sentence again.

b) The dog saw the cat, and he would bark. He ran down the driveway and jumped on the cat’s back. The cat howled and slapped at the dog. The poor old dog got a big scratch on his nose and would race back home.

This does not seem like a suitable use of 'would', in the sense you mean. It's because that use of 'would' really suggests that you are talking about an action at a significantly later time. But I don't think that's waht you mean. The dog saw the cat and immediately barked. Then all the other actions you go on to describe in Simple Past happened.

The natural thng seems to be to describe all these actions in simple Past, and not use 'would' at all.

Or, I suppose, in theory, use 'would' consistently for all of those actions, so that the reader's attention is still focused on the time when the dog saw the cat. But that would sound a bit silly to me.

I've written a lot, so please consider what I've said and post again if you still need more explanation.

Best wishes, Clive

English 1b3 · Answer

Thanks for your reply, Clive.

This use of would in the main clause that I referred to in my previous post is seldom used. But I also agree with you that it seems unreasonable to see 'would' being used in this way here, because, as you said, the rest of the events would need to include would also--and that's just ridiculous. It also seems odd for it to be 'would' expressing habituality. "The dog saw the cat, and he used to bark" It just seems weird that the first part of the sentence states something that happened, but then the second part shifts to a habitual act. Wouldn't you agree?

I actually retrieved this from a site discussing tenses, so I assumed the sentence was gramatically correct, more or less.

Clive · Answer

Hi,

Well, it's good to read everything with a critical eye.

Clive

Clive · Answer

Hi,

Here's a further thought.

I think of this use of 'would' as a rather literary device. There needs to be some significance to the later event, and some meaningful connection to the first event.

eg This sounds fine.

The King was driven from his throne in 1811. He would die in obscurity 20 years later.

eg This sounds stupid.

The King was driven from his throne in 1811. He would eat a cheese sandwich 20 years later.

There also needs to be some degree of importance or at least of interest to the whole scenario, which is why I chose a king and his death. I don't see those elements in a mundane narrative about dogs barking.

Clive

'would' time expressed

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions