Usage of "would"

[supratim7]

I believe, one of the uses of "would" is as "past of will" e.g. he said he would be away for a couple of days

Then I encountered OG-13 SC-43. The non underlined part of the sentence put me in a fix.

"X had long been expected to announce a reduction in output to bolster sagging oil prices, but officials of the organization just recently announced that the group will pare daily production by 1.5 million barrels by the beginning of next year only if ...",

I don't get why they used past "announced" + "will", not "would".

Thank you :)

[RonPurewal]

If something is still a future event, then use the future.

Tim told me yesterday that he would finish the book by this morning.
(...was the future then, but not now; "this morning" has come and gone.)

Tim predicted yesterday thay I will die at the age of 101.
(I'm not 101 yet. Still future.)

[amateur]

Hello Ron, I have a couple of questions if you can please clarify.
Question 1:
If I am not wrong MGMAT also mentioned in one of its pages (SC book) that we need to talk only one shift in event time line. For example, talk about past-present, present-future but not past-future. If that is the case, how can you support the usage of past tense and a future will in the line the first post user listed? I do not remember the exact page number of MGMAT SC else I must have listed it.
On the same grounds, I do respect you telling me in the other topic that Aristotle SC grail was found to be inconsistent but for our (test takers) understanding/discussion let me list one questions here:
Page 227, problem 120:
Beaten convincingly and fairly by their arch rivals, the city rugby team has promised that they are going to win back the title next year
C) The city rugby team, beaten convincingly and fairly by its arch rival, promised that it will win back the title next year
E) Beaten convincingly and fairly by its arch rival, the city rugby team has promised that it will win back the title next year
They listed the answer as E and I do agree from what I read from the MGMAT SC book. So why will C be wrong in this case? Aristotle SC grail's explanation was that C has promised which is in past tense so would (in place of will) should be used. If that is the case, as per you would cannot be used since the title is next year.

Question 2:
Even I do not know much about other names than parts of speech, so i try to explain things in layman terms.
Is it true that had should be used when the sentence talks about another event in completely past tense? Or can had also be used when the talk is about two events and if one event happened before the other but this other event is still happening (use of has)?
Please clear these two doubts for me. Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

In the problem you've quoted, both C and E are perfectly respectable correct sentences.

Don't use that source. Get rid of it. For your own good. Really.

Question 2:
Even I do not know much about other names than parts of speech, so i try to explain things in layman terms.
Is it true that had should be used when the sentence talks about another event in completely past tense? Or can had also be used when the talk is about two events and if one event happened before the other but this other event is still happening (use of has)?
Please clear these two doubts for me. Thank you.

This is too abstract for me to understand. Please give me an example or two.

Thanks.

[amateur]

Hello Ron,
I am not great at giving examples. Moreover, if I do, I may end up giving a wrong one and my doubt won't be cleared. I will try explaining my question clearly.
For example,
Today is thursday. An event (event1) happened on monday and another event (event2) happened on tuesday. When we talk about both these events today, we need to/can use 'had' for event1 and simple past for event2. I understand this.

So what if the case is like, event1 happened on monday and another event (event2) started on tuesday and is still happening until this moment. We use 'has' to report event2 and are we allowed to use 'had' to report event1 in this case?

Hope I am clear this time. Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

Hello Ron,
I am not great at giving examples.

^^ This probably accounts for 95% of the difficulty that you experience with this language stuff.
The problem, of course, is that any non-trivial aspect of the language is going to be inseparable from the context in which it is applied. (Only trivial aspects -- such as the agreement between subject and verb -- can be articulated and/or understood without examples.)

Just think about how you learned your own native language. Nothing but examples, examples, and more examples. Almost certainly, you never even thought about the generel patterns until you'd already been using those patterns for years -- if you ever thought about them at all.
Obviously you can't acquire a second language in exactly the same way, since you can't revisit all those years of childhood learning, but you can still try to emphasize examples as a vehicle for learning.

When I say "too abstract for me", I am not kidding -- when these things are stated as abstract rules/patterns, it's actually impossible for me to process them. I can ONLY understand them by thinking about appropriate examples.

Finally -- if you CAN'T readily think of an example, then, almost certainly, you're thinking about something that is a non-issue in the first place.
If you're thinking about anything that is important enough to be tested on this exam (which tests only a tiny percentage of everything in written English), it shouldn't be hard to come up with examples.

Moreover, if I do, I may end up giving a wrong one and my doubt won't be cleared.

* Nobody's perfect.

* Without large numbers of mistakes, learning is impossible.

[RonPurewal]

Today is thursday. An event (event1) happened on monday and another event (event2) happened on tuesday. When we talk about both these events today, we need to/can use 'had' for event1 and simple past for event2. I understand this.

It's not that simple.
"Had __ed" implies that the first event had a tangible impact on the second one.
E.g.,
I was pulled over by a traffic cop on Tuesday, so I was glad that I had paid my license fee on Monday!
--> You can see the impact here. Monday's action (my paying the license fee) had a tangible impact on Tuesday's situation (since I had paid the fee, I wouldn't get in trouble for not paying it).

vs.
This has been a bad week. Not only was I struck by lightning on Monday, but I received a traffic ticket on Tuesday.
--> "Had been struck" would be wrong here, because there's no reasonable relationship between these two events.

[RonPurewal]

So what if the case is like, event1 happened on monday and another event (event2) started on tuesday and is still happening until this moment. We use 'has' to report event2 and are we allowed to use 'had' to report event1 in this case?

Completely context-dependent. Make up an example, please. (As I stated above, if you can't readily think of an example, then the whole thing is likely a non-issue.)

[supratim7]

If something is still a future event, then use the future.

Tim told me yesterday that he would finish the book by this morning.
(...was the future then, but not now; "this morning" has come and gone.)

Tim predicted yesterday thay I will die at the age of 101.
(I'm not 101 yet. Still future.)

Whoa, That's big.. Thank you Ron.

One more question... What about constructions that don't give any marker/clue whether something is still a future event? e.g.
Tim promised me that he will/would finish the book.
or
Tim predicted that stock market will/would crash.

This has been a bad week. Not only was I struck by lightning on Monday, but I received a traffic ticket on Tuesday.

Ron, haven't you mentioned in one of your posts that "Not only was I ..." structure is reserved for questions? I mean, "Not only was I ..." vs. "Not only I was ..."

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your dear ones :)
Supratim

[RonPurewal]

Ron, haven't you mentioned in one of your posts that "Not only was I ..." structure is reserved for questions? I mean, "Not only was I ..." vs. "Not only I was ..."

No. In fact, it would be impossible to write a question containing that structure.

"Not only was I..." would put 2 complete clauses/ideas in parallel.
E.g., Not only was I late to the concert, but my dog was bitten at the park.

"Not only I..." would put "I" in parallel with another person/animal/whatever. While I don't think the resulting sentence is strictly wrong, it's just ... weird. You'd never see it in good writing.
Not only I, but also Henry, was late to the show.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your dear ones :)
Supratim

Thanks. You too.

[supratim7]

Thank you for the reply Ron.

Ron, haven't you mentioned in one of your posts that "Not only was I ..." structure is reserved for questions? I mean, "Not only was I ..." vs. "Not only I was ..."

No. In fact, it would be impossible to write a question containing that structure.

I agree. With "Not only" attached, it wouldn't be possible to form a question.

A) But verb before subject (Was he late?, What was he doing?), in general, is reserved for questions, right?

"Not only was I..." would put 2 complete clauses/ideas in parallel.
E.g., Not only was I late to the concert, but my dog was bitten at the park.

"Not only I..." would put "I" in parallel with another person/animal/whatever. While I don't think the resulting sentence is strictly wrong, it's just ... weird. You'd never see it in good writing.

B) So, this stuff is idiomatic, right?
Otherwise, "Not only I was late to the concert, but my dog was bitten at the park." appears more parallel to me.

If something is still a future event, then use the future.

Tim told me yesterday that he would finish the book by this morning.
(...was the future then, but not now; "this morning" has come and gone.)

Tim predicted yesterday thay I will die at the age of 101.
(I'm not 101 yet. Still future.)

C) Pls help me understand why following GMAT Prep OA doesn't seem to comport.

"The automobile company announced that the average price of next year’s cars and trucks would decrease four-tenths of one percent, or about $72, from that of comparably equipped models this year."
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/the-automobile-company-announced-that-the-average-price-t1905.html

One more question... What about constructions that don't give any marker/clue whether something is still a future event? e.g.
Tim promised me that he will/would finish the book.
or
Tim predicted that stock market will/would crash.

D) Perhaps you overlooked this question
Pls refer OG12 SC#139 as an example.

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

A) But verb before subject (Was he late?, What was he doing?), in general, is reserved for questions, right?

Most such things are probably in questions, but certainly not all of them.
For one, there's the construction already discussed above. For another, there are comparisons involving helping verbs (e.g., I have sold more books than has anyone else in the sales department).

There are probably others, too.

B) So, this stuff is idiomatic, right?
Otherwise, "Not only I was late to the concert, but my dog was bitten at the park." appears more parallel to me.

You can call it idiomatic if you want, although that's a somewhat liberal definition of "idiomatic". (Sentence structure and and word order are essentially random, although they tend to be highly consistent within each language.)
When we use the word "idiomatic" on this forum, we use it largely to refer to certain pairings of words or phrases, e.g., between ... and (not between ... or).

C) Pls help me understand why following GMAT Prep OA doesn't seem to comport.

"The automobile company announced that the average price of next year’s cars and trucks would decrease four-tenths of one percent, or about $72, from that of comparably equipped models this year."
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/the-automobile-company-announced-that-the-average-price-t1905.html

The tense of that verb is a non-issue -- it's the same in all five choices. So, the question writer clearly didn't intend for tense to be an issue. It's quite possible that the question writer and/or editor simply overlooked the tense issue, since it's not a decision point (and since that usage is nearly universal in spoken English, making it harder to notice at a glance).

If that verb tense were actually a decision point (will vs. would), then there's no doubt that will would be correct, unless there were clear and present evidence that the company had reversed the decision. If the decision were already annulled, then would (since the whole thing would be confined to the past in that case).

One more question... What about constructions that don't give any marker/clue whether something is still a future event?

If there's no indication, then either construction could work.

In the problem you mentioned, will/would may at first seem to be a decision point, but it really isn't, since all the choices containing will have other (more easily identifiable) errors.

[supratim7]

Thank you for the reply Ron.

Most such things are probably in questions, but certainly not all of them.
For one, there's the construction already discussed above. For another, there are comparisons involving helping verbs (e.g., I have sold more books than has anyone else in the sales department).

There are probably others, too.

So, "verb before subject" in sentences that are not questions is not necessarily incorrect. Thanks.

It's quite possible that the question writer and/or editor simply overlooked the tense issue, since it's not a decision point (and since that usage is nearly universal in spoken English, making it harder to notice at a glance).

Couldn't follow.. do you mean that pairing "would" with "all reported speech" is a common error?

If that verb tense were actually a decision point (will vs. would), then there's no doubt that will would be correct, unless there were clear and present evidence that the company had reversed the decision.

So, (a) without any marker/clue whether something is still a future event, "will" would be correct (b) without a clear marker/clue that something is NOT a future event any longer, "would" would be incorrect i.e. one should not automatically infer that because "would" has been used, the event must have been over.

The federal rules aimed at protecting human subjects of medical experiments were established to ensure that an independent panel would evaluate the experiment before it was conducted.

i.e. in above GMAT Prep OA, because "was conducted" indicates that the "experiment" has been done, "would" is legit.

Did I interpret correctly?

Much appreciate your help.

[RonPurewal]

Couldn't follow.. do you mean that pairing "would" with "all reported speech" is a common error?

Sometimes an error (or just sloppy use of language -- most people are not meticulous).

In spoken language, the choice of will vs. would is often imbued with more meaning, e.g., of the speaker's expectations.
E.g., let's say that someone cancels a dinner engagement, and reschedules it for next Wednesday.
Someone who is sure that the person will honor that scheduled engagement would most likely say "He said he'll (= he will) come next Wednesday."
Someone who doubts that the person will honor it may say, "He said he would come next Wednesday".

This distinction is obviously a non-issue in GMAT SC, because (a) it's way, way, WAY too subtle and (b) it depends on outside context that couldn't be contained within a single sentence. But it's a thing.

[RonPurewal]

So, (a) without any marker/clue whether something is still a future event, "will" would be correct (b) without a clear marker/clue that something is NOT a future event any longer, "would" would be incorrect i.e. one should not automatically infer that because "would" has been used, the event must have been over.

There's no need to get so detailed here. If you understand the basics of how these tenses are used, you're good to go.

If you think you see a distinction this subtle, then go find the easy split that it's distracting you from. (:
GMAC does not create problems that depend on subtle differences between tenses, because that would prejudice the test in favor of speakers of European languages (whose tenses work largely like English tenses) and against speakers of other languages.