writing question: why use *would*?

[cave canem]

Why would--I meant that--a writer use the word would to describe past events? (IOW why does a writer use would. . . ) Every time I am asked to help edit writing with this sort of construction, I immediately call it out.  Maybe I shouldn't?  Can you convince me?   

 

This is the sort of thing I mean:

Why "This void was filled by Emperor X who would reign Y months before Sam would murder him."

   instead of "This void was filled by Emperor X who reigned Y months before Sam murdered him."

Or "The new ruler would strive to do the same." 

   instead of "The new ruler strove to do the same."

Or "Under this system, the carpenters would be separated from the plumbers with no opportunity to socialize."

  instead of "The carpenters were separated from the plumbers" etc.

 

Thank you for sharing insight.

 

[SKL]

dp

Edited May 3, 2017 by SKL

[SKL]

Would is used because we are placing ourselves at a time in the past when the next event was in the then-future.  They want you to feel like you are still standing at that place in time even though they are telling you what ends up happening in the future.

[HTRMom]

The second way would sound extremely boring if you used it through a whole text. This way has a more interesting sound, in my opinion.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[winterbaby]

Would is used because we are placing ourselves at a time in the past when the next event was in the then-future.  They want you to feel like you are still standing at that place in time even though they are telling you what ends up happening in the future.

 

This is my understanding. I guess it's kind of optional for the author, but to remove it when that's the author's intended meaning (and they have the order of events right) is incorrect.

[Farrar]

In the examples above, I think the first two sound better with the much clearer past tense, but that the third one sounds better with the conditional just because it sounds like it's getting the reader to imagine being there. Imagine that this group would be separated, etc. etc. I think it probably works best when you're writing about hypothetical everyday life. An ancient doctor would treat his patients such and such a way. The medieval lords would hold such and such a style party. That sort of thing. But Alexander the Great did this. King Henry VIII killed that. Amelia Earhart flew there. Straight up past tense for specific people and actions.

 

But that's just my gut feeling about the style. I don't think that's a rule or anything.

[winterbaby]

Without context the third example is ambiguous as to whether it's a conditional, or the same usage as the first two. Which is not conditional, but, I think, the past tense of "will" in the sense of "be about to." In the past, it was true that they were about to do those things, so you use the past tense of "will," the auxiliary verb that denotes futurity.

 

Another way to think of it: substitute "was [going] to."

 

I would not use it twice in a sentence like in the first example. Whether to say "it happened" or "at such time, it was going to happen" is a stylistic choice but if you pile them on top of each other you start to lose the temporal distinctions that are the whole point of the construction. I would say "who would reign Y months before Sam murdered him."

[Carrie12345]

Why would--I meant that--a writer use the word would to describe past events? (IOW why does a writer use would. . . ) Every time I am asked to help edit writing with this sort of construction, I immediately call it out.  Maybe I shouldn't?  Can you convince me?   

 

This is the sort of thing I mean:

Why "This void was filled by Emperor X who would reign Y months before Sam would murder him."

   instead of "This void was filled by Emperor X who reigned Y months before Sam murdered him."

Or "The new ruler would strive to do the same." 

   instead of "The new ruler strove to do the same."

Or "Under this system, the carpenters would be separated from the plumbers with no opportunity to socialize."

  instead of "The carpenters were separated from the plumbers" etc.

 

Thank you for sharing insight.

 

(Without using smart grammar words, because it's not even dawn...)

 

In the first example, it clarifies the timeline, though I would make it "before being murdered by Sam."  Which may very well be wrong, but it's not even dawn!  

"The basketball game was won by Tom, who would die six hours before the team would find him."

"The basketball game was won by Tom, who died six hours before the team found him."

Did a dead man win the game or not?

 

In the last example, I'd need more context.  

"On January 23, 19something, Blahbittyblah began.  Under this system, X would be Y from Z with Q."

"Blahbittyblah was crummy.  X was Y from Z with Q."

"Tom suggested Blahbittyblah.  Under this system, X would be Y from Z with Q.  It didn't happen."

[Guest]

It's when the writer is talking about the future from the POV of the past. It also is denoting a continual state of something and not a one-time event. So if I say, "When I was 9years old, my grandfather would walk my sister and me to the bakery and buy sticky buns every Sunday," this is correct. It is describing an ongoing occurrence that was in the future at that point in the past.

 

It can also be conditional: "If we had had a million dollars, we would have bought the yacht."