Teacher Discussion Forums

Grammar slap!

It came about that he received a promotion the following summer.
It would come about that he received a promotion the following summer.

A grammarian has just onformed me that the second example should be:

It would come about that he receive a promotion the following summer.

What do you think?

Mind, the grammarian couldn't tell me anything about the difference between the originals.

It came about that he received a promotion the following summer.
He got the promotion the following summer (past) and people got to hear about it. (He already got the promotion.)


It would come about that he received a promotion the following summer.
Just wait and watch, it won't be long before people will get to hear that he got a promotion the following summer. (He is yet to get the promotion).
OR
He got the promotion the following summer (past) and people got to hear about it. (He already got the promotion.)

Isn't that "came about" a bit of a red herring?

You're in a narrative in the past:

He went for an interview. He didn't get the job. So he became very depressed. He got promoted a year later. He drank too much for a while.

The narrative jumps to a year later. And then back again, we suppose. It's a bit ambiguous but:

He went for an interview. He didn't get the job. So he became very depressed. He would get promoted a year later. He drank too much for a while.

(I'm trying to show the time sequence in simple terms, not use very natural English)

can be seen in the "real time" present as:

He goes for an interview. He doesn't get the job. So he gets very depressed. He will get promoted a year later. He drinks too much for a while.

Only one time line operating so easier to understand.

He went for an interview. He didn't get the job. So he became very depressed. He would get promoted a year later. He drank too much for a while.

Indeed. Is "it would come about" just a longer version of "would", as used in your example above?

I think it means "with the passing of time" or "Anyway" or something like that. It's not completely redundant, is it?

deleted

But there I might be being "Quaint". Is that what you mean by "quaint" metal? I would then consider "come about" as quaint as well.

I would probably do the same. Would you consider "would" as quaint, here:

She caught a cold that summer, By winter, she would be dead. (Meaning "by winter she was dead" or "she died at the beginning of winter".)

The difference is from where you are looking at it.

It came about that he received a promotion the following summer.
has the speaker looking back at the past from a point in the present.

It would come about that he received a promotion the following summer.
Has the speaker looking at the action from two separate points in time, the present, which explains the use of the past tense, and a particular time in the past one year before he received the promotion, which explains the use of the modal for prediction.

deleted

It would come about that he received a promotion the following summer.
Has the speaker looking at the action from two separate points in time, the present, which explains the use of the past tense, and a particular time in the past one year before he received the promotion, which explains the use of the modal for prediction.

I also see the modal as a modal of prediction (and inevitability), there. Do you see it as a modal of prediction here?

He was sent to a separate orphanage to that of his brother. Many years later he would run into his brother in a motorway café.

It still for me comes down to that "would" representing the "will" in the historic present:

She catches a cold this summer. By winter she has died/is dead/dies.

Just "then.... then.... then......" : Narrative. That "has died" changes to "had died" in past narrative.

But here the voice of the writer is letting the reader into a secret:

She catches a cold this summer. (But guess what dear reader) By winter she will be dead.

Same goes for "is sent" and "will run into".

In both cases "will" becomes "would" in past narrative.

I don't see how "would" talking about the unalterable past can be predictive. The "will" it represents is a certainty, either because these things happened but the writer decides to use the historic present or because it's the writers *%$ story and s/he should know what happens next:

"Columbus arrives at the Spanish court. Two years will pass before he gets an audience with the king and queen."

"A man walks into a pub. He drinks 15 pints. In half an hour he will go to the lav."

Answering my own question.

I can see that the "will" of my examples come closer than many others to the Lewisian "given my understanding of the situation it is inevitable that" because in one my understanding of history is that such and such did happen (although I made up the two-year wait) or in the other it's my story so I am in charge (unless I'm John Fowles pretending that I'm not).

The "will" it represents is a certainty, either because these things happened but the writer decides to use the historic present or because it's the writers *%$ story and s/he should know what happens next:

Is "a certainty" synoymous with "a fact", above?

the place (where) met the woman he later married

the place (where) he met the woman he would later marry

the place (where) he meets the woman he will later marry

Tough one, but modality has the authority of the speaker/writer.

x=3 y= 2 :. x+y=5

That's a fact. No words.

If x equals three and y equals 2 then x plus y equals five.

That's a fact. Using words.

If x equals three and y equals 2 then x plus y will equal five.

It's a fact, but now backed by the personal authority of the speaker.

The authority in your examples is the writer's voice, which intervenes in the second and third examples, in cahoots with the reader, but not in the first .