will, would, be verb [conditional]

by **yongwookl716** Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:45 am

Ron. Please Help me. Confused about conditional tenses

The Court has ruled that the Universities can collect student activity fees even with students' objections, as long as the groups ARE chosen without regard to the universities' views.

It's wrong to use 'will' (or will be), because the main verb tense is present perfect. (has ruled) Correct?

Why do we use ARE?
Can we use WOULD BE?

Also, when solving SC questions, I just made it a rule that

"past tense + would [conditional]
present tense + will"

IS it okay to think like this?

When do we use IS/ARE like the sentence above?

Thank you

by **RonPurewal** Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:54 pm

yongwookl716 Wrote:It's wrong to use 'will' (or will be), because the main verb tense is present perfect. (has ruled) Correct?

this issue is unrelated to "has ruled", which can come before ANY tense.

The court has ruled that no more overlimit fees will be allowed after January 1, 2016. (ruling about something in the future)

The referee has ruled that Smith crossed the goal line, so the touchdown stands. (ruling about something in the [very recent] past)

by **RonPurewal** Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:55 pm

Why do we use ARE?

here, we're talking about a general ruling; the court has ruled that something, in general, can happen.
since there's no timeframe attached to the ruling, we use the present tense (as we do for other non-time-dependent generalizations; e.g., By the Middle Ages, doctors were aware that blood circulates throughout the human body.)

Can we use WOULD BE?

no, since nothing is presented as a contrary-to-fact hypothetical.

by **RonPurewal** Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:57 pm

Also, when solving SC questions, I just made it a rule that

"past tense + would [conditional]
present tense + will"

this is a decent approximation, but of course it's better to understand what the tenses actually signify. (for this exam, you only need to know the basics—you will never be tested on subtleties, nuances, or weird exceptions.)

by **yongwookl716** Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:59 pm

Can we use WOULD BE?

no, since nothing is presented as a contrary-to-fact hypothetical.

Hello Ron. Thanks again :) As you should already know, I'm not a native speaker so there's a lot of things that confuse me. You're being a great help.

One more question about would, if I may. The "contrary to fact hypothetical" part confuses me.

Let me use some sentences from the strategy guide as an example.

If Ron ATE pizza tomorrow, then he WOULD become ill.

So by "contrary-to-fact hypothetical", you mean the sentence above means RON is unlikely to eat pizza tomorrow.

And another sentence from the book.

2.Scientist: "The supercollider IS ready and it WILL provide new insights."

3.The scientist ANNOUNCED that the supercollider WAS ready and that it WOULD provide new insights.

My question is "does sentence number three, also have a contrary to fact hypothetical meaning?"

Or in another words.

Does sentence number 3 also mean that the supercollider actually DID NOT provide any insights?
To me it just sounds like expressing the future from a past point of view.

To sum up, I'm curious whether "WOULD" can have two usages
1) "contrary to fact hypothetical" meaning.
2) WILL in the past form

I'm having difficulty trying to express my curiosity but,
Hope you understand my question. Thanks

by **RonPurewal** Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:04 pm

yongwookl716 Wrote:To sum up, I'm curious whether "WOULD" can have two usages
1) "contrary to fact hypothetical" meaning.
2) WILL in the past form

this is exactly on point.

here's an older post i wrote about this topic:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... tml#p45300

by **RonPurewal** Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:05 pm

yongwookl716 Wrote:If Ron ATE pizza tomorrow, then he WOULD become ill.

So by "contrary-to-fact hypothetical", you mean the sentence above means RON is unlikely to eat pizza tomorrow.

correct.

if it's deemed reasonably possible that ron will eat pizza tomorrow, then you'd write
If Ron eats pizza tomorrow, then he will become ill.

by **RonPurewal** Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:05 pm

RonPurewal Wrote:3.The scientist ANNOUNCED that the supercollider WAS ready and that it WOULD provide new insights.[/i]

My question is "does sentence number three, also have a contrary to fact hypothetical meaning?"

no; this is "past tense of will", as you described quite well.

will, would, be verb [conditional]

will, would, be verb [conditional]

Re: will, would, be verb [conditional]

Re: will, would, be verb [conditional]

Re: will, would, be verb [conditional]

Re: will, would, be verb [conditional]

Re: will, would, be verb [conditional]

Re: will, would, be verb [conditional]

Re: will, would, be verb [conditional]