Hi, I need your input as to the following statements:
1. They will/would pass their exam if they studied hard.
2. When Jack arrived at the party, Peter had already left/ has already left.
I know that the correct answers are would and had already left, but I want to know which Parts of Speech rules are they based on. Appreciate your input. Thanks.
Another thing, I almost forgot, do you say 'on the weekend' or 'at the weekend'. I've always thought it to be 'on the weekend', but I read on an English learning website that it should be at the weekend. Can you tell me what you think?
Cheers...
Will and Would...when to use them
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
First of all (and most important), congratulations on your engagement! Best wishes for a happy life, both as a spouse and as a teacher. 
I'm guessing, both because of your engagement, and also by the nature of your question, that you're young, and a native speaker (so you "know" the "correct" answer) but a relative newbie as a teacher (because you're looking for "rules" to pin your answer on).
Maybe it's not quite that simple, and yet it really is simple indeed. One idea that might help you a lot is to realize that there might not be a rule for every point of English grammar. On the other hand, it might also help a lot to remember that there are two rather distinct kinds of grammatical rules. One kind consists of plain facts: "The plural of wife is wives (and not wifes)." "Main verbs in statements with third-person singular subjects acquire an "-s" at the end." There is nothing for the student to understand with these kinds of rules...they simply need to be memorized and applied. (Of course, that doesn't mean that it's always easy for the students).
Other kinds of grammar rules are generative; that is, they are intended to simplify things for students by lessening the memorization load. It is intended for language users to understand something about how the language is put together, so that one doesn't have to memorize every possible sentence in English, but rather can, by understanding the "map" provided by certain observations about how English works (which we rather misleadingly call "rules", thereby unhelpfully lumping them together with the first kind), put together meaningful and understandable sentences on the fly, so to speak. It also helps to remember that English, in particular perhaps, is extremely flexible so that skilled users can bend some of the rules to good effect in getting a "special" nuance of meaning understood by other skilled users.
Let's look at your sentences individually. The first one is probably built upon the assumed understanding that "people who study hard pass their exams." But your example sentence presumably refers to people who may not be studying hard. These particular subjects are, so to speak, rather remote (conceptually) from those who follow the straight-line path to academic success. If their behavior is thus remote, perhaps also will be their likelihood of success. So the sentence, rendered:
They would pass their exams if they studied hard.
...exhibits two moments of remoteness in the choice of word forms: would (rather than will, which lacks remoteness), and studied (rather than study, which likewise is not remote). These words are chosen precisely because the idea to be conveyed is NOT the same as is understood in "people who study hard pass exams." Be sure to note, here, that the sentence is perfectly acceptable if we change both of those words to their immediate forms:
They will pass their exams if they study hard.
So it is the prior existence of the remote form "studied" that necessitates the use of "would" in the earlier part to make a sentence which is understandable. You can read it as, "They would pass their exams (but they won't) if they studied hard (because they won't)." But let's not make a "rule" here when simple understanding of what is going on will suffice. To my knowledge, there is no rule which states that if you have a remote form early in a sentence, then all other parts of the sentence must be remote too.
Your second example sentence is just a matter of understanding the timing of events. At the moment the sentence is uttered, Peter has already left. And indeed, the speaker could say as much. But if he did, he would be pinning his temporal focus on the moment of speaking. However, "When Jack arrived at the party," is presumably sometime before this speaker says the sentence, so use of Present Perfect form is not kosher. Rather Past Perfect is more appropriate in this case...because the temporal focus is in past time.
I've already said way too much, and I apologize for that, but somehow I felt your question deserved a somewhat complete answer. I hope I haven't bored you to death.
Regarding your last question, and in view of some of what I said above, I think I'll let you decide for yourself:
Can you say, "Sandy and I are going sailing on the weekend."?
Can you say, "The weather is supposed to improve at the weekend."?
Larry Latham
I'm guessing, both because of your engagement, and also by the nature of your question, that you're young, and a native speaker (so you "know" the "correct" answer) but a relative newbie as a teacher (because you're looking for "rules" to pin your answer on).
Maybe it's not quite that simple, and yet it really is simple indeed. One idea that might help you a lot is to realize that there might not be a rule for every point of English grammar. On the other hand, it might also help a lot to remember that there are two rather distinct kinds of grammatical rules. One kind consists of plain facts: "The plural of wife is wives (and not wifes)." "Main verbs in statements with third-person singular subjects acquire an "-s" at the end." There is nothing for the student to understand with these kinds of rules...they simply need to be memorized and applied. (Of course, that doesn't mean that it's always easy for the students).
Other kinds of grammar rules are generative; that is, they are intended to simplify things for students by lessening the memorization load. It is intended for language users to understand something about how the language is put together, so that one doesn't have to memorize every possible sentence in English, but rather can, by understanding the "map" provided by certain observations about how English works (which we rather misleadingly call "rules", thereby unhelpfully lumping them together with the first kind), put together meaningful and understandable sentences on the fly, so to speak. It also helps to remember that English, in particular perhaps, is extremely flexible so that skilled users can bend some of the rules to good effect in getting a "special" nuance of meaning understood by other skilled users.
Let's look at your sentences individually. The first one is probably built upon the assumed understanding that "people who study hard pass their exams." But your example sentence presumably refers to people who may not be studying hard. These particular subjects are, so to speak, rather remote (conceptually) from those who follow the straight-line path to academic success. If their behavior is thus remote, perhaps also will be their likelihood of success. So the sentence, rendered:
They would pass their exams if they studied hard.
...exhibits two moments of remoteness in the choice of word forms: would (rather than will, which lacks remoteness), and studied (rather than study, which likewise is not remote). These words are chosen precisely because the idea to be conveyed is NOT the same as is understood in "people who study hard pass exams." Be sure to note, here, that the sentence is perfectly acceptable if we change both of those words to their immediate forms:
They will pass their exams if they study hard.
So it is the prior existence of the remote form "studied" that necessitates the use of "would" in the earlier part to make a sentence which is understandable. You can read it as, "They would pass their exams (but they won't) if they studied hard (because they won't)." But let's not make a "rule" here when simple understanding of what is going on will suffice. To my knowledge, there is no rule which states that if you have a remote form early in a sentence, then all other parts of the sentence must be remote too.
Your second example sentence is just a matter of understanding the timing of events. At the moment the sentence is uttered, Peter has already left. And indeed, the speaker could say as much. But if he did, he would be pinning his temporal focus on the moment of speaking. However, "When Jack arrived at the party," is presumably sometime before this speaker says the sentence, so use of Present Perfect form is not kosher. Rather Past Perfect is more appropriate in this case...because the temporal focus is in past time.
I've already said way too much, and I apologize for that, but somehow I felt your question deserved a somewhat complete answer. I hope I haven't bored you to death.
Regarding your last question, and in view of some of what I said above, I think I'll let you decide for yourself:
Can you say, "Sandy and I are going sailing on the weekend."?
Can you say, "The weather is supposed to improve at the weekend."?
Larry Latham
-
just engaged
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 7:08 am
-
just engaged
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 7:08 am
Hi Larry,
I have read your reply, and it has been very helpful. I now recall the underlying reasons that you have given in relation to the two sample statements, and I agree with you. But regarding the verb involving a third person singular that usually ends in -s, I don't exactly get what you mean, could you please clarify further.
Ahh, regarding myself, yes you're right that I have just been engaged. However, in regards to age, unfortunately I am not that young, but most people think that I am whenever I speak on the phone and even when they meet me in person, so I take it as a blessing.
cheers...
I have read your reply, and it has been very helpful. I now recall the underlying reasons that you have given in relation to the two sample statements, and I agree with you. But regarding the verb involving a third person singular that usually ends in -s, I don't exactly get what you mean, could you please clarify further.
Ahh, regarding myself, yes you're right that I have just been engaged. However, in regards to age, unfortunately I am not that young, but most people think that I am whenever I speak on the phone and even when they meet me in person, so I take it as a blessing.
cheers...
In the simple present....
Hey there!
Larry is referring to a rule that I myself have repeated 25,000 times if I have said it once:
"Third person singular verbs in the simple present always take an -s".
Excepting "can" (which I personally teach as an auxiliary word and not as a verb) there is no exception to this rule and it can thus be taught as one of those "English is like that, learn it!" things.
peace,
revel.
Larry is referring to a rule that I myself have repeated 25,000 times if I have said it once:
"Third person singular verbs in the simple present always take an -s".
Excepting "can" (which I personally teach as an auxiliary word and not as a verb) there is no exception to this rule and it can thus be taught as one of those "English is like that, learn it!" things.
peace,
revel.
Hmmm I hope the weather will improve on the weekend. (It's pretty foggy here.) My native speaker ears can't use "at the weekend" at all. I wonder if it is a regional usage? Then again, I'm used to wincingLarryLatham wrote:
Can you say, "Sandy and I are going sailing on the weekend."?
Can you say, "The weather is supposed to improve at the weekend."?
Larry Latham
.-
Chercheuse
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 1:50 am
Sorry, if I missed something about this in Larry's reply, but I'd just like to point out that you absolutely can say, "They will pass their exam if they studied hard." Both will and would are equally correct (and common), depending on the meaning of the sentence. I'll just deal with will below:
They will pass their exam if they studied hard is an example of a mixed (time) conditional. It’s also a real conditional, whereas if you substitute would, it’s unreal. As a real mixed conditional, it’s a case where what happened (or didn't happen) in the past affects the future.
It's like saying, "I don't know if the students studied hard yesterday or not, but if they did, I know they'll pass the exam later today because they'll be well-prepared.” It could also have the same approximate meaning as this exchange between teachers:
Teacher 1: I saw the students studying hard at the library yesterday.
Teacher 2: Well, then they're bound to pass the test later today.
There are other types of mixed conditionals: If you liked movies, I would have invited you to see the film with us last night. (Unreal present + unreal past)
Look up mixed conditionals in a grammar book, preferably advanced. It's a worthwhile lesson to do with students who need to see that the "rules" Larry was talking about are only meant to point out patterns and organize information for learners. We tell the students about real and unreal conditionals, past and present, and we introduce the most straightforward examples to make it clear. Most practice exercises deal with both clauses exhibiting the conditional in the same time frame, but the fact is you can mix time in a conditional sentence, and we do so every day! The example sentence you offered is also a great opportunity to showcase the differences between real and unreal conditionals.
To teach the idea of mixed conditionals, you could offer the students a dialogue like this:
Yasuko: What’s’ wrong?
Ted: I’m afraid my blind date won’t like me.
Yasuko: Relax! /Chill out! /Take a chill pill!…. You bought her some flowers, didn’t you?
Ted: Yeah…..
Yasuko: Well, then/ Dude, what are you worrying about?....If you bought her some flowers, she’ll like you.
Ted: Really?
Yasuko: I guarantee it.
Have them play around with the dialogue in pairs, keeping the same basic dialogue, but changing the topic. Example: Instead of talking about a blind date, they are talking about a test (You studied, didn’t you?), losing weight (You’ve been exercising, haven’t you?) , getting sick, (You’ve been taking vitamin c, haven’t you? etc.. You could give them some possible substitutions and let them fill in just Yasuko's second to last line where the mixed conditional is. Then let them see if they can change the topics on their own. No doubt they’ll make a lot of errors (notice that some of my examples use the past tense and some use the present perfect progressive – fat chance they’ll get that right when making up their own!
), but hopefully the concept of mixing time will be clearer. You might also try creating a similar dialogue with other types of mixed conditionals (past affects present, present affects past).
They will pass their exam if they studied hard is an example of a mixed (time) conditional. It’s also a real conditional, whereas if you substitute would, it’s unreal. As a real mixed conditional, it’s a case where what happened (or didn't happen) in the past affects the future.
It's like saying, "I don't know if the students studied hard yesterday or not, but if they did, I know they'll pass the exam later today because they'll be well-prepared.” It could also have the same approximate meaning as this exchange between teachers:
Teacher 1: I saw the students studying hard at the library yesterday.
Teacher 2: Well, then they're bound to pass the test later today.
There are other types of mixed conditionals: If you liked movies, I would have invited you to see the film with us last night. (Unreal present + unreal past)
Look up mixed conditionals in a grammar book, preferably advanced. It's a worthwhile lesson to do with students who need to see that the "rules" Larry was talking about are only meant to point out patterns and organize information for learners. We tell the students about real and unreal conditionals, past and present, and we introduce the most straightforward examples to make it clear. Most practice exercises deal with both clauses exhibiting the conditional in the same time frame, but the fact is you can mix time in a conditional sentence, and we do so every day! The example sentence you offered is also a great opportunity to showcase the differences between real and unreal conditionals.
To teach the idea of mixed conditionals, you could offer the students a dialogue like this:
Yasuko: What’s’ wrong?
Ted: I’m afraid my blind date won’t like me.
Yasuko: Relax! /Chill out! /Take a chill pill!…. You bought her some flowers, didn’t you?
Ted: Yeah…..
Yasuko: Well, then/ Dude, what are you worrying about?....If you bought her some flowers, she’ll like you.
Ted: Really?
Yasuko: I guarantee it.
Have them play around with the dialogue in pairs, keeping the same basic dialogue, but changing the topic. Example: Instead of talking about a blind date, they are talking about a test (You studied, didn’t you?), losing weight (You’ve been exercising, haven’t you?) , getting sick, (You’ve been taking vitamin c, haven’t you? etc.. You could give them some possible substitutions and let them fill in just Yasuko's second to last line where the mixed conditional is. Then let them see if they can change the topics on their own. No doubt they’ll make a lot of errors (notice that some of my examples use the past tense and some use the present perfect progressive – fat chance they’ll get that right when making up their own!
), but hopefully the concept of mixing time will be clearer. You might also try creating a similar dialogue with other types of mixed conditionals (past affects present, present affects past).-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Chercheuse, you are quite correct here, and somehow I missed that, even though it is obvious when you point it out. Thanks for picking up on my omission.Chercheuse wrote:Sorry, if I missed something about this in Larry's reply, but I'd just like to point out that you absolutely can say, "They will pass their exam if they studied hard." Both will and would are equally correct (and common), depending on the meaning of the sentence.
Larry Latham
Just to introduce another perspective...
As a non-AmE speaker:
I would never say 'on the weekend' - only 'at the weekend.' To my ears, 'on the weekend' sounds incorrect and I know few e.g. British English (or British-ish) speakers who would say it.
And I wouldn't say 'If they studied hard, they'll pass the exam' - I'd take our beloved Present Perfect and say
'If they've studied hard, they'll pass the exam'.
(To non-natives on this board for the first time: yes, we do speak the same language... almost...)
As a non-AmE speaker:
I would never say 'on the weekend' - only 'at the weekend.' To my ears, 'on the weekend' sounds incorrect and I know few e.g. British English (or British-ish) speakers who would say it.
And I wouldn't say 'If they studied hard, they'll pass the exam' - I'd take our beloved Present Perfect and say
'If they've studied hard, they'll pass the exam'.
(To non-natives on this board for the first time: yes, we do speak the same language... almost...)
Don't remember...
Hey guys and gals.
I simply don't remember which I use, probably from not using either for so many years not speaking English.
I do remember, though, that whichever one, "on the weekend" or "at the weekend" that I used when living in the mid-west (Illinois) was not the one used when I moved to the east coast (New York City), so, at least in the US, there is a regional difference.
If they study hard, they'll pass the exam.
If they had studied hard, they would have passed the exam.
Although the others are "correct", these are the two that I would use. Although with the additional explanations offered, If they studied hard they will pass seems to make sense, though on the first reading I didn't like that sentence.
peace,
revel.
I simply don't remember which I use, probably from not using either for so many years not speaking English.
I do remember, though, that whichever one, "on the weekend" or "at the weekend" that I used when living in the mid-west (Illinois) was not the one used when I moved to the east coast (New York City), so, at least in the US, there is a regional difference.
If they study hard, they'll pass the exam.
If they had studied hard, they would have passed the exam.
Although the others are "correct", these are the two that I would use. Although with the additional explanations offered, If they studied hard they will pass seems to make sense, though on the first reading I didn't like that sentence.
peace,
revel.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
The problem here is that the past simple can refer to real events in the past as well as hypothetical events. Many languages use the subjunctive to distinguish the latter but Engish now only does in the fossilized phrase "if I were you".
Would as a modal also can refer to real conditionals. Remember the example some months back of
"They would say hello if they saw him."
Normally we don't have a mix, so we will have the Present Simple with 'will' and the Past Simple with 'would', but different contexts may require the mix.
Note that
They will pass if they've studied for the exam
and
They will pass if they studied for the exam are both correct.
The difference is the same as the standard difference between past simple and present perfect. That is that the past simple implies, though not necessarily so in American usage, that the speaker is envisaging a limited period of time (such as for example the last few days before the exam).
Would as a modal also can refer to real conditionals. Remember the example some months back of
"They would say hello if they saw him."
Normally we don't have a mix, so we will have the Present Simple with 'will' and the Past Simple with 'would', but different contexts may require the mix.
Note that
They will pass if they've studied for the exam
and
They will pass if they studied for the exam are both correct.
The difference is the same as the standard difference between past simple and present perfect. That is that the past simple implies, though not necessarily so in American usage, that the speaker is envisaging a limited period of time (such as for example the last few days before the exam).
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Ah, gentle readers, Rania reminds us that the English we speak is not necessarily the correct way to use it. We must try harder to keep that in mind when students ask us questions. None of us can reasonably consider ourselves THE AUTHORITY on the language, no matter how long we've been using it, or how many relevant degrees we may have.Rania wrote:Just to introduce another perspective...
As a non-AmE speaker:
I would never say 'on the weekend' - only 'at the weekend.' To my ears, 'on the weekend' sounds incorrect and I know few e.g. British English (or British-ish) speakers who would say it.
And I wouldn't say 'If they studied hard, they'll pass the exam' - I'd take our beloved Present Perfect and say
'If they've studied hard, they'll pass the exam'.
(To non-natives on this board for the first time: yes, we do speak the same language... almost...)
All of these seem possible (and therefore "correct" insofar as we can responsibly report to students) to me:
...on the weekend
...at the weekend
...in the weekend
...this (next) weekend
...by the weekend
...before (after) the weekend
...(well, you get the idea
)What are the differences? Ah, well, that depends heavily on the particular context in which they might be used.
Larry Latham
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. ... &dict=CALD
Check out the 'at the weekend' (UK) and 'on the weekend' (US) in the Cambridge dictionary. I think both are correct. Dictionary is always my last resort.
William
Check out the 'at the weekend' (UK) and 'on the weekend' (US) in the Cambridge dictionary. I think both are correct. Dictionary is always my last resort.
William