would have to be

Status
Not open for further replies.

Osya Bender

Junior Member
Joined
May 7, 2013
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Belarus
Current Location
Belarus
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.
 

Route21

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
Thailand
Last edited:

Osya Bender

Junior Member
Joined
May 7, 2013
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Belarus
Current Location
Belarus
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" ?
 

bhaisahab

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
Ireland
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.
 

Osya Bender

Junior Member
Joined
May 7, 2013
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Belarus
Current Location
Belarus
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?)
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
The past perfect has not been used here.
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.
 

Osya Bender

Junior Member
Joined
May 7, 2013
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Belarus
Current Location
Belarus
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?
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
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.
 

Osya Bender

Junior Member
Joined
May 7, 2013
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Belarus
Current Location
Belarus
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:
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)
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
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.
 

Osya Bender

Junior Member
Joined
May 7, 2013
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Belarus
Current Location
Belarus
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.
Could you tell me what can be the reason for the using of "the tyre had punctured and it would have to be replaced" if I want to report the situation ? I can't justify the use of the past perfect and future in the past in the sentence if it doesn't contain a past simple verb.
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.
Why should I consider "time B" at all? I just want to report the situation when the tyre punctured. Let's assume it happened on 27 April. On 8 may I say:
The tyre punctured and it has to be replaced (if the tyre hasn't been replaced).
The fact that 22.35 on 1 May I said "The tyre has punctured and it will have to be replaced" doesn't matter
I still don't uderstand:-(
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Could you tell me what can be the reason for the using of "the tyre had punctured and it would have to be replaced" if I want to report the situation?
I explained one situation in which that sentence was acceptable and natural. I cannot tell you why the original speaker/writer chose to express his/her thoughts in that way. You'd have to ask him/her.
I can't justify the use of the past perfect and future in the past in the sentence if it doesn't contain a past simple verb
Perhaps you can't, but I have shown that it is possible.
Why should I consider "time B" at all?
I was trying to come up with a moderately straightforward scenario in which the tenses used were natural.

There are many possible ways we can talk about that puncturing of the tyre and the need for it to be changed, but we are not talking about them. We are talking about the words given in the dictionary definition and I have explained that, in the appropriate context, they are grammatically correct and natural. If you can't accept that, that is up to you.
 

Osya Bender

Junior Member
Joined
May 7, 2013
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Belarus
Current Location
Belarus
If you can't accept that, that is up to you.
I don't want to accept something or to not accept or argue. I just would like to understand.
You say:
"Perhaps you can't, but I have shown that it is possible.", but you don't explain why it is possible.
Here is the explanation I base my idea on:
would
1. used as the past form of will when reporting what sb has said or thought
• He said he would be here at eight o'clock (= His words were: ‘I will be there at eight o'clock.’) .
• She asked if I would help.
• They told me that they probably wouldn't come.
(Oxford dictionary)
Could you show me (or explain) why "it is possible" ?
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Could you show me (or explain) why "it is possible" ?
I flew to Istanbul last year. My son had been rushed to hospital, and I wanted to be with him. When I arrived, I found that his sister had already arrived.

I don't need any he saids to justify the past perfects. We don't in your original sentence. These are classic examples of the past perfect used for events occurring before a later (but still past) time.
 

Osya Bender

Junior Member
Joined
May 7, 2013
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Belarus
Current Location
Belarus
Yes, this example is clear enough, but it is talking about past simple/past perfect, not past perfect / would have to (like a grammatical construction in the original sentence and like that we're talking about).
Could you give such an example?
Thanks.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Yes, this example is clear enough, but it is talking about past simple/past perfect, not past perfect / would have to (like a grammatical construction in the original sentence and like that we're talking about).
Could you give such an example?
No.

I looked at that briefly in post #6. If that's not good enough for you, you'll have to wait for somebody else to drop in.

[FONT=&quot]A final word from me before I leave this thread. I think you need to remember that the Oxford lexicographers took a sentence with no context to illustrate the use of the verb puncture. They had no desire or need to worry about the context or the tenses; these were not relevant to their needs. They wanted a sentence illustrating the verb being used, and they found one.[/FONT]
 

Osya Bender

Junior Member
Joined
May 7, 2013
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Belarus
Current Location
Belarus
Sorry, but that's really not enough for me. I didn't recieve answers to my clarifying questions. I hope someone else will help.
 

SoothingDave

VIP Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
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.

Does it help at all if you consider there to be an unstated continuation? Something like "the tire had punctured and would have to be replaced (before we could use the car again.)"
 

Osya Bender

Junior Member
Joined
May 7, 2013
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Belarus
Current Location
Belarus
Does it help at all if you consider there to be an unstated continuation? Something like "the tire had punctured and would have to be replaced (before we could use the car again.)"
I'm afraid, not quite...
1) I don't know (and haven't found on the internet) such a grammatical term like "an unstated continuation"
2) the tire had punctured and would have to be replaced before we could use the car again.
I don't understand - when the speaker is saying this phrase - before the tyre was replaced or after that but before they used the car again. Or after the tyre was replaced and after they used the car again...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top