Hi, Dallas Hinton!
I read your message from 08.08.2019 11:34

"it is a mirror of the original land bridge that (had) connected
the island to the mainland more than 500 years ago."

I can't understand the sense of "would have connected" in "the
bridge that would have connected the island to the mainland more
than 500 years ago."

I'd suggest that this is journalese -- a newspaper/magazine writer
trying to sound more erudite than the material deserves!

Having said that, the phrase "would have...." is possibly short
for "if this bridge still existed it would have....", but it's a
horribly cumbersome way of saying, as you suggested, "used to
connected".

Why? We have the exact time in the past (500 years ago). So, we can use the Past Indefinite (the Simple Past) if we speak of the real fact that the bridge connected two points at that time.

Bye, Dallas!
Alexander Koryagin
english_tutor 2019

---
* Origin: nntps://fidonews.mine.nu - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)

Hi Alexander -- on Aug 10 2019 at 12:33, you wrote:

horribly cumbersome way of saying, as you suggested, "used to
connected".

I should have said "used to connect" ... dunno where my mind was!

Why? We have the exact time in the past (500 years ago). So, we can
use the Past Indefinite (the Simple Past) if we speak of the real
fact that the bridge connected two points at that time.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the presence of a land bridge x years
ago is still the subject of some debate.



Cheers... Dallas

--- timEd/NT 1.30+
* Origin: The BandMaster, Vancouver, CANADA (1:153/7715)