verb tenses, subjunctive?

[guest612]

obtained from a manhattangmat exam question: does the "would have" portion make it subjunctive? i suppose not because the following verb would have to be present tense. in that case, what verb tense is that, "would have"?

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

Answer is D. I chose answer B. Can you please explain elaborate what's wrong with using "took more" versus the correct form in answer choice D "would take more"? What are the grammatical principles behind this?

The explanation provided has been copied below for your reference:

(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."


(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.


Thank you very much!

[StaceyKoprince]

Essentially, if we use the simple past tense for multiple events, it seems as though all of those events occurred contemporaneously (at the same time, or close together in time). Is that the case in this sentence? No, we have events spread over a wide swath of time - if we wanted to have both verbs in some type of past tense, we would then have to use the past perfect construction for the one that occurred earlier in time and the simple past construction for the one that occurred later in time.

The correct answer sidesteps this error by using the classic meaning of would (although the usage has expanded in presente times). Simply put, the past tense of will is would. So why does this not also break the rule I talked about above - that we shouldn't use two simple past tenses here?

(Note that the sentence uses "would take," not "would have," as you quoted.)

Imagine the writer is writing from the point of view of the moment in time just after the effort was launched (in 1860) - so the launch, or birth, of the dictionary has already occurred and the dictionary will take 60 years to complete. But the sentence was written now, recently, so "will" becomes "would." This is a special circumstance in which the past tense form actually indicates a "future time" - from the point of view of a specific point in time in the past. Now the language properly indicates this later-in-time past event vs. the earlier-in-time "birth" of the dictionary.

This is an unusual structure; while it could show up on your test, it's more likely that it won't. "Would" is much more commonly used in the conditional tense now (and even that is not one of the most commonly tested rules on the test).

This is a really tough one - don't worry about it too much!

[guest612]

Hi Stacey!

Thanks! I really appreciate the thoughtful response. I'm taking it in a week and trying to work out all the kinks! Sorry for the late reply!

[StaceyKoprince]

You're welcome - good luck on the test!

[StaceyKoprince]

p.s. please remember to follow protocol. The subject of your post should be the first 5-8 words of the question itself. Thanks!

[UPA]

Essentially, if we use the simple past tense for multiple events, it seems as though all of those events occurred contemporaneously (at the same time, or close together in time). Is that the case in this sentence? No, we have events spread over a wide swath of time - if we wanted to have both verbs in some type of past tense, we would then have to use the past perfect construction for the one that occurred earlier in time and the simple past construction for the one that occurred later in time.

The correct answer sidesteps this error by using the classic meaning of would (although the usage has expanded in presente times). Simply put, the past tense of will is would. So why does this not also break the rule I talked about above - that we shouldn't use two simple past tenses here?

(Note that the sentence uses "would take," not "would have," as you quoted.)

Imagine the writer is writing from the point of view of the moment in time just after the effort was launched (in 1860) - so the launch, or birth, of the dictionary has already occurred and the dictionary will take 60 years to complete. But the sentence was written now, recently, so "will" becomes "would." This is a special circumstance in which the past tense form actually indicates a "future time" - from the point of view of a specific point in time in the past. Now the language properly indicates this later-in-time past event vs. the earlier-in-time "birth" of the dictionary.

This is an unusual structure; while it could show up on your test, it's more likely that it won't. "Would" is much more commonly used in the conditional tense now (and even that is not one of the most commonly tested rules on the test).

This is a really tough one - don't worry about it too much!

undoubtdly nice explatation.

[rfernandez]

Nice job, Stacey.

[Guest]

Stacey ...

Would the sentence be correct if it had used the correct past tense verbs ... i.e.

although the project took more than 60 years to complete, the Oxford English Dictionary had been


Would this sentence also be correct ???

[StaceyKoprince]

yes! That would still indicate the difference in the two events taking place in two different time frames.