Hi,
“ Myer’s parents are British, which probably accounts for his ability – he would have grown up with the sounds around him.”
It seems I’ve never seen such (a?) usage of would. Could you please enlighten me?
TIA
Hi Humble
I'd explain it this way: The word 'would' continues and clarifies the 'probably' part of the sentence. The only thing the speaker knows as a fact is that Myer's parents are British. The rest of the sentence is an assumption or theory about what was probably true in the past.
Thank you both.
Harry,
I guess what you say refers to conditionals, which is not the case here.
Philly,
That’s just what I thought. You’ve helped me realize it’s “They will have gone to bed”-type of certainty transferred to the past.
Regards
Hi, Hunble!
What do you think of the sentences given below?
1.You helped me a lot. I don't know what I would have done.
2. I didn't go to the party though I was invited. I wouldn't have enjoyed it.
Harry,
Your sentences refer to Conditional III – passed situations that did not happen (unreal passed situations).
1. I don’t know what I would have done if you hadn’t helped me.
2. If I had gone to the party, I wouldn’t have enjoyed it.
In the original sentence the speaker expresses his certainty – he is nearly 100% sure Myer “grew up with the sounds around him”.
I think he could as well say “ he must have grown up with the sounds around him.”
Regards
Yes. I think "he must have grown up with the sounds around him" makes it easier to understand on the one hand and on the other it shows that the speaker is 100% sure of it. But I think we could say like this: He is more likely to have grown up with the sounds around him."
Mmm, it seems to me likely usually refers to the future, but I must make sure.