Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1
    Viktor Sorokin is offline Junior Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • Russian
      • Home Country:
      • Ukraine
      • Current Location:
      • Ukraine
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default would have to be

    puncture
    ■ [no obj.] sustain a puncture
    the tyre had punctured and it would have to be replaced
    Oxford dictionary

    1) I can't understand what "sustain a puncture" means. if I have a puncture (of a tyre), why do I sustain it ? ("strengthen or support physically or mentally")

    2) This combination of the past perfect and would have in this sentence is obscure to me...
    I understand this as: The tyre punctured at some time in the past. Would have to be means that it has to be replaced but has not been replaced yet - (something like the second conditional; the sentence implies: it would have to be replaced but something has prevented from doing it).
    Do I understand correctly?

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    Route21's Avatar
    Route21 is offline Senior Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Interested in Language
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • Thailand
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    938
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: would have to be

    As an NES but not a teacher, See:

    sustain - definition of sustain by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

    6. To experience or suffer:
    sustained a fatal injury.

    For question #2, it doesn't require something to have prevented it. You may just not have got round to fixing it, as you had more pressing matters to attend to.

    Regards
    R21
    Last edited by Route21; 08-May-2013 at 04:36.

  3. #3
    Viktor Sorokin is offline Junior Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • Russian
      • Home Country:
      • Ukraine
      • Current Location:
      • Ukraine
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: would have to be

    Quote Originally Posted by Route21 View Post
    For question #2, it doesn't require something to have prevented it. You may just not have got round to fixing it, as you had more pressing matters to attend to.
    May I ask some more questions
    So, if "and it would have to be replaced" is saying about the present, why does the sentence use the past perfect instead of the past simple in the first part?
    Will it have the same meaning if I say like this:
    "the tyre punctured and it would have to be replaced" ?
    And do I correctly understand that the following two sentences are correct and have the same meaning (the tyre never was replaced)
    the tyre had punctured and it would have had to be replaced
    the tyre punctured and it would have had to be replaced
    Or would it be more correct to say "should have had to be"instead of"would have had to be" ?

  4. #4
    bhaisahab's Avatar
    bhaisahab is offline Moderator
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Retired English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • England
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    22,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: would have to be

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktor Sorokin View Post
    May I ask some more questions
    So, if "and it would have to be replaced" is saying about the present, why does the sentence use the past perfect instead of the past simple in the first part? The past perfect has not been used here.
    Will it have the same meaning if I say like this:
    "the tyre punctured and it would have to be replaced" ?
    And do I correctly understand that the following two sentences are correct and have the same meaning (the tyre never was replaced) No.
    the tyre had punctured and it would have had to be replaced
    the tyre punctured and it would have had to be replaced
    Or would it be more correct to say "should have had to be"instead of"would have had to be" ? No.
    Bhai.

  5. #5
    Viktor Sorokin is offline Junior Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • Russian
      • Home Country:
      • Ukraine
      • Current Location:
      • Ukraine
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: would have to be

    The past perfect has not been used here.
    the tyre had punctured and it would have to be replaced
    And do I correctly understand that the following two sentences are correct and have the same meaning (the tyre never was replaced) No.
    I don't understand - why?

    Please, could you give more detailed answer ? (or if you don't want, could anyone else answer more in detail?)

  6. #6
    5jj's Avatar
    5jj is offline VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Retired English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • Czech Republic
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28,168
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: would have to be

    Quote Originally Posted by bhaisahab View Post
    The past perfect has not been used here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Viktor Sorokin View Post
    the tyre had punctured and it would have to be replaced
    The past perfect was not used in one of the sentences you gave.

    It would make life rather simpler if you asked one question at a time. There are at least four (unnumbered) questions in post #6.

    I will try to deal with one sentence here. If my response is helpful, feel free to ask one new question. If it is not helpful, feel free to ask one follow-up question.
    the tyre had punctured and it would have to be replaced
    Let us imagine ourselves at time A (for me, as I write this post, that is 22.35, Central European Time, on 8 May) For some reason (don't ask why!) we are looking back at time B - let's say exactly one week ago. At that time, 22.35 on 1 May, the tyre was flat. The words I uttered at that time were: "The tyre has punctured and it will have to be replaced".

    One week later, looking back at that situation, I report it as: The tyre had punctured and it would have to be replaced.

    The words in green, on their own, do not tell us whether or not the tyre has been replaced since we noticed that it had punctured.

    Over to you.

  7. #7
    Viktor Sorokin is offline Junior Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • Russian
      • Home Country:
      • Ukraine
      • Current Location:
      • Ukraine
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: would have to be

    Thank you.
    So, you mean that the sentence is incomplete, i.e. the dictionary gives us only a part of the full sentence that could look like this:
    "A week ago I said that The tyre had punctured and it would have to be replaced."
    And that (the future in the past) - the only one possible meaning that this sentence can have

    Do I correctly understand?

  8. #8
    5jj's Avatar
    5jj is offline VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Retired English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • Czech Republic
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28,168
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: would have to be

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktor Sorokin View Post
    Thank you.
    So, you mean that the sentence is incomplete, i.e. the dictionary gives us only a part of the full sentence that could look like this:
    "A week ago I said that The tyre had punctured and it would have to be replaced."
    The sentence in the dictionary is not necessarily incomplete. The words I gave in green in my post can stand alone as a complete sentence. You have incorporated them into a longer sentence.
    And that (the future in the past) - the only one possible meaning that this sentence can have
    I didn't say that. It's the only meaning that I can think of at the moment, but there may be others. What is important is that we have established one clear, natural context in which the words make sense. The meaning is not not obscure.

  9. #9
    Viktor Sorokin is offline Junior Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • Russian
      • Home Country:
      • Ukraine
      • Current Location:
      • Ukraine
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: would have to be

    Quote Originally Posted by 5jj View Post
    The sentence in the dictionary is not necessarily incomplete. The words I gave in green in my post can stand alone as a complete sentence.
    Then, I can't understand one thing.
    You say:
    Quote Originally Posted by 5jj View Post
    At that time, 22.35 on 1 May, the tyre was flat. The words I uttered at that time were: "The tyre has punctured and it will have to be replaced".

    One week later, looking back at that situation, I report it as: The tyre had punctured and it would have to be replaced.
    If I want to repeat the phrase that I said a week ago - why don't I say "I said that The tyre had punctured ...." ? I mean that the use of a verb in the past tense would make clear to me the use of the future in the past in the sentence.
    On the other hand, if I want to just tell of what happened a week ago and of the tyre, I'd say:
    The tyre punctured and it has to be replaced (if the tyre hasn't been replaced)
    or
    The tyre had punctured and then it was replaced. (if the tyre has been replaced)

  10. #10
    5jj's Avatar
    5jj is offline VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Retired English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • Czech Republic
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28,168
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: would have to be

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktor Sorokin View Post
    If I want to repeat the phrase that I said a week ago - why don't I say "I said that The tyre had punctured ...." ?
    If I want to report the words I used at time B, I can use your sentence.
    If I want to report the situation, I can use mine.
    On the other hand, if I want to just tell of what happened a week ago and of the tyre, I'd say:
    The tyre punctured and it has to be replaced (if the tyre hasn't been replaced).
    If you want to make it clear that the tyre punctured before time B, the. you need 'had punctured'. If you don't, it suggests that the puncturing took place at time B.
    The tyre had punctured and then it was replaced. (if the tyre has been replaced)
    It is not clear what time 'then' refers to. That would be fine as: The tyre had punctured; it was later replaced.

    ps. In BrE we normally change rather than replace a punctured tyre.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •