 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / March 2006would?
Hi, I saw the following sentence and was wondering whether it is correct to use "would" here. In many cases when the unit is installed outdoors, water would slip into the unit along the cords wired from the top during heavy rainfalls. Ray > I saw the following sentence and was wondering whether it is correct > to use "would" here. > > In many cases when the unit is installed outdoors, water would slip > into the unit along the cords wired from the top during heavy > rainfalls. Looks fine to me. Why do you doubt? I'm more worrried about wondering where the cords were wired during dry weather.  SignatureNat "Some days, honey, you just need an extra hammer." --Unattrib. >> I saw the following sentence and was wondering whether it is correct >> to use "would" here. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'm more worrried about wondering where the cords were wired during > dry weather. Yes to that last comment: "during heavy rainfalls" needs to be moved, But (British native speaker) I don't like "would". If the sentence is describing a problem that used to exist, then "was installed" followed by "would" is fine. If it's describing a typical problem that still recurs, I thinks the present tense "slips" is needed, or perhaps only "may slip" if there's a risk but no certainty. The last seems most likely to be what the writer means. Alan Jones >> I saw the following sentence and was wondering whether it is correct >> to use "would" here. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Looks fine to me. Why do you doubt? In Russian the right tense here would be present and "would slip" would be replaced by "slips". In other languages, it too can be something different from conditional. There're more would-related cases to worry about. Examples: As a child I would play in the yard all day long. I asked her to come out but she wouldn't. In these examples would clearly denotes an action in the past (incomplete or complete). Both cases may imply a choice or uncertainty, in which case would may probably be OK. But again, not all languages treat the choice as a primary or normal thing to emphasize. In Russian both sentences would normally have the appropriate form of the past tense in place of would (+ infinitive). And this is that example I was talking about in another post of mine, why people natively speaking a language don't see the potential problems that non-native speakers would face often with that same language. Alex > > I saw the following sentence and was wondering whether it is correct > > to use "would" here. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Looks fine to me. Why do you doubt? But it doesn't look fine to Alan Jones and me. And to Oxford Advanced Learner's dictionary either. Are you a native speaker of English? > I'm more worrried about wondering where the cords were wired during dry > weather. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "Some days, honey, you just need an extra hammer." > --Unattrib. >>> I saw the following sentence and was wondering whether it is correct >>> to use "would" here. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Are you a native speaker of English? Yes. SignatureNat "Some days, honey, you just need an extra hammer." --Unattrib. >>>> I saw the following sentence and was wondering whether it is >>>> correct to use "would" here. >>>> >>>> In many cases when the unit is installed outdoors, water would slip >>>> into the unit along the cords wired from the top during heavy >>>> rainfalls. >>> Looks fine to me. Why do you doubt? >> But it doesn't look fine to Alan Jones and me. And to Oxford Advanced >> Learner's dictionary either. >> >> Are you a native speaker of English? > Yes. But perhaps not British English? I think this may be a Pondian issue. Alan Jones >>>>> I saw the following sentence and was wondering whether it is >>>>> correct to use "would" here. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > But perhaps not British English? I think this may be a Pondian issue. Well, I'm in South Africa, but arm riluctint to kerektrahze mah Yinglish ez Sar Fefficun. I'd say British English more than anything. I think, looking back on it, I was trying to filter out the clunkiness of the sentence as a whole, and answer concisely the question asked, rather than indulge in discursive and non-responsive snarkiness about the other issues. In hindsight, this may have been not such a great idea. So, anyway, in my mind's ear, I was hearing a surveyor's report saying something like "Units are wired from the top and so, in cases where they were installed outside, water would enter the unit along the electrical cords." Having discursively and non-responsively taken the trouble to spell out my thought processes, it becomes clear I was answering a significantly different question. Perhaps next time I'll know better, and quibble first. Anyway, my mental version, now revealed above, is what sounds fine to me. End, uf ut uzz@nt, my year @z maw Sar Fefficun den are tort. SignatureNat "Some days, honey, you just need an extra hammer." --Unattrib. "Ray" asks about: > In many cases when the unit is installed outdoors, water would slip > into the unit along the cords wired from the top during heavy > rainfalls. The sequence of tenses is wrong. If it *is* installed outdoors, water *will* slip into it; if it *was* installed outdoors, water *would* slip into it. SignatureMark Brader "[It] was the kind of town where they spell Toronto trouble TRUBIL, and if you try to correct them, msb@vex.net they kill you." -- Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid > "Ray" asks about: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > *will* slip into it; if it *was* installed outdoors, water *would* slip > into it. I would write "water can slip". SignatureStephen Lennox Head, Australia "Ray" asked about: >>> In many cases when the unit is installed outdoors, water would slip >>> into the unit along the cords wired from the top during heavy >>> rainfalls. I (Mark Brader) wrote: >> The sequence of tenses is wrong. If it *is* installed outdoors, water >> *will* slip into it; if it *was* installed outdoors, water *would* slip >> into it. > I would write "water can slip". Or "could" in the past-tense version, I trust. But surely not when the sentence also contains "in many cases". SignatureMark Brader "Never trust anybody who says 'trust me.' Toronto Except just this once, of course." msb@vex.net -- John Varley, "Steel Beach" > I saw the following sentence and was wondering whether it is correct to > use "would" here. > > In many cases when the unit is installed outdoors, water would slip > into the unit along the cords wired from the top during heavy > rainfalls. WOULD is not ungrammatical here but CAN would be more idiomatic. It is a bad sentence cf. last phrase (implying the unit was wired during rain). A better and shorter version is: When a unit is installed outdoors, rainwater can enter it along the cords that enter the top. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > > I saw the following sentence and was wondering whether it is correct to > > use "would" here. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > When a unit is installed outdoors, rainwater can > enter it along the cords that enter the top. Some previous editions of popular dictionaries say "would" can indicate probability and offer examples like "She would be well over 60 by now". But this sense is no longer found in the latest editions. Do you find the example natural? Ray > > > I saw the following sentence and was wondering whether it is correct to > > > use "would" here. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > But this sense is no longer found in the latest editions. Do you find > the example natural? That's not probability. With a particular birth date, she would certainly be over 60 by now if she hadn't already died. The example is natural, but only if there is that 'if' condition, either in the statement or understood from the preceding conversation. -- john > > > > I saw the following sentence and was wondering whether it is correct to > > > > use "would" here. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > natural, but only if there is that 'if' condition, either in the > statement or understood from the preceding conversation. My Oxford Dictionary of Current English (1996) says "would" can mean "to express probability" (I quoted this definition verbatim) and gives that example. It seems to me that you don't agree with that. Could there be some semantic change going on, and therefore you find that particular sense impossible? Or is the dictionary downright wrong? Ray > -- > john > > > > > I saw the following sentence and was wondering whether it is correct to > > > > > use "would" here. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > there be some semantic change going on, and therefore you find that > particular sense impossible? Or is the dictionary downright wrong? I agree that it's something I would understand and might even say. It's a compact form of 'She would be well over 60 by now [if she's still alive]'. However, I would describe this as a conditional statement, not a way to 'express probability'. -- john >>>> Some previous editions of popular dictionaries say "would" can >>>> indicate probability and offer examples like "She would be well [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > still alive]'. However, I would describe this as a conditional > statement, not a way to 'express probability'. I support that description. ODoCE didn't put it well. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >> Some previous editions of popular dictionaries say "would" can >> indicate probability and offer examples like "She would be well [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is natural, but only if there is that 'if' condition, either in the > statement or understood from the preceding conversation. Ray's example is natural in my dialect, so I'm surprised that it's been deleted from dictionaries that previously had it. It's typically only said in the case where you don't know when she was born, so you're making an educated guess. A typical context could be "Well, she's been living around here for the last 30 years, and she looked to be in her thirties when she arrived, so she'd be over 60 by now." SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer reliably receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address still has about 4 months of life left. > Ray's example is natural in my dialect, so I'm surprised that it's been > deleted from dictionaries that previously had it. It's typically only said > in the case where you don't know when she was born, so you're making an > educated guess. A typical context could be "Well, she's been living > around here for the last 30 years, and she looked to be in her thirties > when she arrived, so she'd be over 60 by now." Do you find the following use of "would" natural in your dialect? In many cases when the unit is installed outdoors, water would slip into the unit along the cords wired from the top during heavy rainfalls. Ray > -- > Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org . >> Ray's example is natural in my dialect, so I'm surprised that it's >> been deleted from dictionaries that previously had it. It's [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > into the unit along the cords wired from the top during heavy > rainfalls. Not in the sentence as stated, because the sequence of tenses is wrong. If you changed the "is" to "was", then I would find "would" natural. Note, however, that this is a difference use of "would" from that in the text of mine that you quoted. In your example, "would" is simply the past tense of "will". So you can say either "... when the unit is installed outdoors, water will drip ..." or "... when the unit was installed outdoors, water would drip ..." depending on whether you're talking about the past or the present/future. (In an example like this, there isn't any distinction made between the present and the future.) By the way, I agree with everyone else who said that "during heavy rainfalls" should either be deleted, or moved to a different place in the sentence. The way you have it, it gives the impression that the wiring was done in the rain. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer reliably receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address still has about 4 months of life left. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > into the unit along the cords wired from the top during heavy > rainfalls. Not really. "When...is" doesn't seem to agree with "would." The following are better. In many cases when the unit is installed outdoors, water will slip into the unit along the cords wired from the top during heavy rainfalls. In many cases where the unit was installed outdoors, water would slip into the unit along the cords wired from the top during heavy rainfalls. In many cases where the unit is installed outdoors, water slips into the unit along the cords wired from the top during heavy rainfalls. The second half of the sentence is awkward too, though easily understood. Ideally, we'd have something like this: In many cases where the unit has been installed outdoors, heavy rainfall has caused water to run into the unit along the cords wired from the top. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ray No, unless "In many cases when the unit is installed outdoors" is changed to read "In many cases when the unit was installed outdoors" Also, water does not 'slip', but 'enter', 'run', or 'drip'. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ray >>Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Also, water does not 'slip', but 'enter', 'run', or 'drip'. Not big on anthropomorphism, hunh? When the unit is installed outdoors, care should be taken to prevent water from entering the unit along the cords on top. --Jeff SignatureThe difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world's problems. --Mohandas Gandhi |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.