• Would have connected

    From Alexander Koryagin@2:221/360 to Dallas Hinton on Saturday, August 10, 2019 12:33:22
    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)
  • From Dallas Hinton@1:153/7715 to Alexander Koryagin on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 00:50:15
    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)