In 1860, the Philological Society launched its effort

[rahul.gmat]

In 1860, the Philological Society launched its effort to create a dictionary more comprehensive than the world had ever seen; although the project would take more than 60 years to complete, the Oxford English Dictionary had been born.
A)would take more than 60 years to complete, the Oxford English Dictionary had been
B) took more than 60 years to complete, the Oxford English Dictionary was
C) would take more than 60 years to complete, the Oxford English Dictionary was being
D) would take more than 60 years to complete, the Oxford English Dictionary was
E) took more than 60 years to complete, the Oxford English Dictionary was about to be
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.

(B) This choice changes both the first and second verbs to simple past ("took" and "was born," respectively). In this circumstance, we have two events that took place at different times in the past, which requires use of the past perfect to indicate which event happened first. The dictionary's "birth" obviously happens before its completion, so correct usage would be that the "Dictionary had been born."

(C) The present participle "being" is used with the progressive tense to indicate a continuing or ongoing action. Logically, however, the Dictionary's start must have been at a single point in time, rather than over the course of the book's development.

(D) CORRECT. This choice correctly uses the simple past "was born." A more complicated past tense is not required because the other verb "would take," is not in the past tense.

(E) This choice incorrectly adopts the construction "was about to be born," which conflicts with the non-underlined portion of the sentence. The first half of the sentence indicates that the project was "launched" in 1860 in the past tense, making any reference to the book being "about to be born" at some future point in time incorrect.

Hi, could you please clarify I doubt on this one. I dont understand tenses very well. But one thing that I can see why you say (B) is wrong is that birth should be before completion, but wont the dictionary be born after the project is completed? And also, you say that (E) is wrong coz it points to te future, dosen't (D) also do that - "would take". I can see why (A), (C) and (E) are wrong but (B) seems fine, there's nothing wrong if both events are in simple past. Also, (B) seems better than (D) due to the use of future tense in (D). Could you please explain why (D) is better than (B).

[StaceyKoprince]

This is a complicated one.

Re: born vs. complete, "born" is being used as a metaphor (of course, since a dictionary can't literally be born ). In this case "born" means it was started. Logically, the start needs to occur before the completion.

Answer B changes the first verb from "would take" to the simple past "took." When using past tense, we default to the simple tense unless a reason exists to use one of the more complex tenses (in which case we are required to use the more complex tense). In this case, two simple past tenses in the same sentence indicate that the two events took place essentially simultaneously, but that is not the case. First, the book was "born" and then, some 60 years later, it was completed. This kind of situation requires the past perfect tense (used to indicate which of two past events that took place at different times occurred first and which occurred second).

For the "future" issue, there are actually two different circumstances here. The first half of the sentence (before the semi-colon) is set in the past tense. The second half is written from the point of view of the timeframe of the first half. At the point that it was launched, it was also born - these mean the same thing - but it was not yet completed. From the viewpoint of the time it was launched (in the past), the completion is sometime in the future.

Answer E puts the "birth" in the future and the completion in the past, which is illogical. Answer D correctly puts the "birth" in the past (simultaneous with launch) and the completion in the future from the point of view of the "birth."

Make sense?

[Guest]

This is a complicated one.

Re: born vs. complete, "born" is being used as a metaphor (of course, since a dictionary can't literally be born :) ). In this case "born" means it was started. Logically, the start needs to occur before the completion.

Answer B changes the first verb from "would take" to the simple past "took." When using past tense, we default to the simple tense unless a reason exists to use one of the more complex tenses (in which case we are required to use the more complex tense). In this case, two simple past tenses in the same sentence indicate that the two events took place essentially simultaneously, but that is not the case. First, the book was "born" and then, some 60 years later, it was completed. This kind of situation requires the past perfect tense (used to indicate which of two past events that took place at different times occurred first and which occurred second).

For the "future" issue, there are actually two different circumstances here. The first half of the sentence (before the semi-colon) is set in the past tense. The second half is written from the point of view of the timeframe of the first half. At the point that it was launched, it was also born - these mean the same thing - but it was not yet completed. From the viewpoint of the time it was launched (in the past), the completion is sometime in the future.

Answer E puts the "birth" in the future and the completion in the past, which is illogical. Answer D correctly puts the "birth" in the past (simultaneous with launch) and the completion in the future from the point of view of the "birth."

Make sense?

Hi Stacy,

I get your point but somehow I feel that the use of the conditional would is incorrect while stating a fact. OG Verbal Page 266 Q 20 Option C clearly says so. Since the completion happened after the birth of the OED, the sentence's construction should instead be "although the project took more than 60 years to complete, the Oxford English Dictionary had already been born"; the past perfect used for the birth of OED expressing that the birth happened before the completion of the project.

Please clarify

[StaceyKoprince]

You can construct the sentence that way - but none of the choices give you that option. There is more than one way to construct a sentence and still have it be grammatically correct.

While "would" is most commonly used for conditional, it is not reflecting conditional tense here. Would can also be used for what's called the "future-in-past" tense, which is what we have here - the sentence is written from the point of view of the past and talks about an event that is in the future from that point of view. At the same time, that "future" event is really in the past relative to present time - hence, we use the word "would" instead of "will."

This is an uncommon tense. Most people won't see this on the test, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

[kegewex]

Just my two cents, when reading this question, I saw the act of the dictionary being born as occurring after its completion. The time it takes to create is like the gestation period of the dictionary, and once it is complete it is then published or "born."

Any thoughts?

[meetfais]

This is a complicated one.



Re: born vs. complete, "born" is being used as a metaphor (of course, since a dictionary can't literally be born :) ). In this case "born" means it was started. Logically, the start needs to occur before the completion.



Answer B changes the first verb from "would take" to the simple past "took." When using past tense, we default to the simple tense unless a reason exists to use one of the more complex tenses (in which case we are required to use the more complex tense). In this case, two simple past tenses in the same sentence indicate that the two events took place essentially simultaneously, but that is not the case. First, the book was "born" and then, some 60 years later, it was completed. This kind of situation requires the past perfect tense (used to indicate which of two past events that took place at different times occurred first and which occurred second).



For the "future" issue, there are actually two different circumstances here. The first half of the sentence (before the semi-colon) is set in the past tense. The second half is written from the point of view of the timeframe of the first half. At the point that it was launched, it was also born - these mean the same thing - but it was not yet completed. From the viewpoint of the time it was launched (in the past), the completion is sometime in the future.



Answer E puts the "birth" in the future and the completion in the past, which is illogical. Answer D correctly puts the "birth" in the past (simultaneous with launch) and the completion in the future from the point of view of the "birth."



Make sense?

Thanks Stacey for clarifying the same.
I thought it on similar lines. The author says that the Philological society launched its efforts and estimates that the project would take more than 60 years (timeframe in the past) but in the second part (there the timeframe changes) he essentially means that the 'idea' of Oxford English Dictionary 'was born'.

[Ben Ku]

I'm glad it helped.

[deepakdewani]

You can construct the sentence that way - but none of the choices give you that option. There is more than one way to construct a sentence and still have it be grammatically correct.

While "would" is most commonly used for conditional, it is not reflecting conditional tense here. Would can also be used for what's called the "future-in-past" tense, which is what we have here - the sentence is written from the point of view of the past and talks about an event that is in the future from that point of view. At the same time, that "future" event is really in the past relative to present time - hence, we use the word "would" instead of "will."

This is an uncommon tense. Most people won't see this on the test, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

This is yet another example of a situation in which I start reading the thread with the hope that someone will say that "the OA is wrong!", and end up being overwhelmed by the explanations given by superstars such as Stacey and Ron!

What is the stuff you guys are made of???

Though you say that a question like this is pretty uncommon, I guess it is something like this which will make the difference between a 720 and a 750 on the test day!

[cjpena]

The explanation section says that "would take" is not in past tense. What tense is it? Can someone help?

Thanks

[aravind.deva]

Metaphor? Whatever !!

although it took 100 hours of effort, a new product was born (finally : this is optional and implied by common sense)...
this is also a metaphor...< the new product is not the biological reproduction >
in this case , it clearly shows that it is not the starting point but the ending point..


Non-metaphor:

although it would take 2 hours for the surgery , the child was born?
well this means the child was born before the 2 hours for the surgery...lol....

although it took 2 hours for the surgery , the child was born?
--> perfectly right..sequential events
Now what about this
although it had taken 2 hours for the surgery, the child was born?
< we can some how justify this sentence by saying that surgery happened before birth.. crazy crazy justifications>

[tim]

The explanation section says that "would take" is not in past tense. What tense is it? Can someone help?

Thanks

i think Stacey already answered this. Please see above..

[tim]

Aravind, i think your interpretation of "born" is incorrect. In the problem, "born" is intended to refer to the commencement of the project, not the culmination. This contrasts with your biological example, where the birth is the culmination of a two-hour process..

[as2764]

Though you say that a question like this is pretty uncommon, I guess it is something like this which will make the difference between a 720 and a 750 on the test day!

i concede!

[as2764]

While "would" is most commonly used for conditional, it is not reflecting conditional tense here. Would can also be used for what's called the "future-in-past" tense, which is what we have here - the sentence is written from the point of view of the past and talks about an event that is in the future from that point of view. At the same time, that "future" event is really in the past relative to present time - hence, we use the word "would" instead of "will."

this is good, Stacey. the SC strategy guide also talks of shifting a present statement to the past: a reporting verb form where

IS becomes > WAS : present to past
WAS becomes > HAD : past to past perfect
WILL becomes > WOULD : future to conditional

[jnelson0612]

Great discussion! Thanks everyone.