A meaning question on verb tenses

[JhanasC520]

Dear all experts,

I have a question based on verb tenses that I read from OG. as informed form the website that OG questions are no longer allowed to be posted, I will just post some sentence fragments in the hope that this practice will not violate the rule.

I don't quite understand the meaning difference between "would ..if..." and "will....if.." when these two usage are stated in the past tense conditions. For example:

the following sentences are excerpts from OG.

the organization announced that the group will pare daily production , only if non-OPEC nations trim output.

what is the meaning difference by writing like this:

the organization annonced that the group would pare daily production , only if non-OPEC nations trimed output.

A second example:

they assumed that without it their grip on this place would never be secure.

what is the meaning difference by writing like following:

they assumed that without it their grip on this place will never be secure.

Look forward to your reply ! and Many thanks!

[JhanasC520]

Dear Experts:

I once saw the explanation below from some websites:

Would is used for two reasons:
*Past tense of will
Eg. In 1996, I though that I would go to graduate school
* Hypothetial actions in some situation contary to reality
If I were rich, I would give 5000000 dollars to Las vegas.

I understand the hypothetical explanation, but fail to distinguish between the "past tense of will"by using would and will to indicate future....

Could you please help clarify these?

[JhanasC520]

Please help reply this question...........Many thanks.

[RonPurewal]

"Would" = something that was still a future event at the time narrated in the sentence, but is no longer in the future.

"Will" = something that's still a future event, even now.

E.g., let's say Marty is 30 years old.

When Marty was a child, doctors predicted that he would die before reaching the age of 25.
Marty is now 30, so this timeframe is entirely in the past.

Last year, the oncologist predicted that Marty will die before reaching the age of 40.
Marty isn't 40 yet (and is still alive), so, still a future consideration.

[RonPurewal]

Please help reply this question...........Many thanks.

If you do this ^^ then you're just delaying our response to your question.

We answer questions in order, from oldest to newest. If you make a post like this one, the only effect is to make your post back into "the newest" (= the LAST to be answered) again.

Have patience, please. Thanks.

[JhanasC520]

"Would" = something that was still a future event at the time narrated in the sentence, but is no longer in the future.

"Will" = something that's still a future event, even now.

E.g., let's say Marty is 30 years old.

When Marty was a child, doctors predicted that he would die before reaching the age of 25.
Marty is now 30, so this timeframe is entirely in the past.

Last year, the oncologist predicted that Marty will die before reaching the age of 40.
Marty isn't 40 yet (and is still alive), so, still a future consideration.

Dear Ron,

Thank you for the reply. I think I understand this grammar point now.
There is another grammar point about verb tense and hope I can get your help as well.

I really fail to understand one sentence from OG and I paraphrase it below:

1: this rule reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump into the Lakes.

Ron, my understanding about this sentence is that : a rule in the past reduced something and this something is in the present.

as you can see, from my understandng, the meaning is nonsensical, how can one thing in the past reduced sth that is in the present????unless it has time machine.....

2: But quite strangely, I can understand this sentence from OG, I paraphrase it below:

growing conditions encouraged farming traditions that have, in places, endured for at least 6000 years.

I can understand that conditions in the past encouraged something and this something have endured for many years


Many thanks Ron, Since I am a Chinese student, I am sorry if I fail to clarify my confusions and thanks for your time , patience and help !!!

[JhanasC520]

Dear Ron,

I think I know the answers to the above questions through reading your previous posts. Here is your answers from other posts:

In the early 19th century, a few Mexican traders lived transiently in the region that is now the city of Las Vegas.
This makes sense.
Note the two timeframes:
• "in the early 19th century ... lived"
• "that is now the city of LV"

[JhanasC520]

"Would" = something that was still a future event at the time narrated in the sentence, but is no longer in the future.

"Will" = something that's still a future event, even now.

E.g., let's say Marty is 30 years old.

When Marty was a child, doctors predicted that he would die before reaching the age of 25.
Marty is now 30, so this timeframe is entirely in the past.

Last year, the oncologist predicted that Marty will die before reaching the age of 40.
Marty isn't 40 yet (and is still alive), so, still a future consideration.

Dear Ron,

Per your explanation above, If a event is still a future consideration, then Will is used. if the timeframe is entirely in the past, then expectations or predications is expressed with "would".

I made two sentences, Could you please help checking whether my understanding is right or not?

To conquer the GMAT test, she would have to work hard.
To conquer the GMAT test, she will have to work hard.

The first sentence means that "to conquer" and "work hard" happened some time in the past.

the second sentence means that "to conquer" and"work hard" is still a future event.

Am I right ? Thanks Ron!

[RonPurewal]

Dear Ron,

Thank you for the reply. I think I understand this grammar point now.
There is another grammar point about verb tense and hope I can get your help as well.

I really fail to understand one sentence from OG and I paraphrase it below:

1: this rule reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump into the Lakes.

This problem is also in Prep. Please search the forum; there are lengthy threads about it.

(By the way, if this problem were NOT in Prep, your "paraphrase" would be absolutely unacceptable, and this post would be deleted. You copied the sentence verbatim.)

[RonPurewal]

"Would" = something that was still a future event at the time narrated in the sentence, but is no longer in the future.

"Will" = something that's still a future event, even now.

E.g., let's say Marty is 30 years old.

When Marty was a child, doctors predicted that he would die before reaching the age of 25.
Marty is now 30, so this timeframe is entirely in the past.

Last year, the oncologist predicted that Marty will die before reaching the age of 40.
Marty isn't 40 yet (and is still alive), so, still a future consideration.

Dear Ron,

Per your explanation above, If a event is still a future consideration, then Will is used. if the timeframe is entirely in the past, then expectations or predications is expressed with "would".

I made two sentences, Could you please help checking whether my understanding is right or not?

To conquer the GMAT test, she would have to work hard.
To conquer the GMAT test, she will have to work hard.

The first sentence means that "to conquer" and "work hard" happened some time in the past.

the second sentence means that "to conquer" and"work hard" is still a future event.

Am I right ? Thanks Ron!

If there's no timeframe in the sentence, this is more likely the use of "would" for a counter-factual hypothetical.
I.e., the first sentence is appropriate if the woman does not currently have plans to prepare for the GMAT; the second is appropriate if she does have such plans.

For the time-related uses, you need an explicit timeframe(s) IN the sentence. Note the specificity in the "Marty" sentences.