[Grammar] Would

[nouamaneer]

Dear,

I need to know why 'live' can't be used with 'would' in the following example: I would live. Used to talk about past states. The right version is 'used to live'. But i'm lacking a justification. 'live' is not a stative verb, so why it can't be used with 'would'.

Thanks for answering,

 

[birdeen's call]

Why do you think "live" is not a stative verb?

 

[nouamaneer]

Thanks for your reply.

First, i have never seen it in any list of stative verbs. All list i got in hand are bereft of that verb. Second and if my memory serve me well, i have seen that verb being used in the present perfect continuous, a thing that defies thet rule of stative verbs use. That of not being used with continuous tenses.

P.S.: If you have got a more exaustive list of stative verbs, i would really appreciate it if i can have it,

 

[birdeen's call]

Please capitalize the word "I".

"Live" can be either stative or dynamic, depending on the context. When it means "be alive", it's stative.

PS: I'm sorry, I didn't refer to your original question. You won't see "would live" to mean used to live. Note that even when used as an active verb, "live" won't denote a repetitive action.

 

[Masood_S]

I need to know why 'live' can't be used with 'would' in the following example: I would live. Used to talk about past states.

Hello,

Your premise is incorrect. 'live' can be used with 'would'.

e.g.
During the summer months, I would live with my grandparents in their country house.

Cheers

 

[Masood_S]

You won't see "would live" to mean used to live.

Hello/Czesc,

Yes you will. See my example above.

Cheers

 

[birdeen's call]

Hello/Czesc,

Yes you will. See my example above.

Cheers

Cześć.

This is a good counterexample.

 

[nouamaneer]

Thanks once again for the reply. Too, for the correction; though I was hasty in writing my reply, that's why I made the mistake. But, thanks anyway for reminding us of the rule.

Let me reframe my situation. You said that 'live' can be both dynamic and static and you set the shade of meaning, 'be alive' as sative. Could you set another example where the same verb is dynamic.

Second, how could you justify the use of 'would' in the following example as wrong:

My parents would live in a cottage in the country before they moved to the city centre.

Just to remind you the sentence is ungrammatical. Possibilities of correction are:

1- Used to. 2- lived. 3- were living.

Thanks once more,

 

[birdeen's call]

Take a good look at Masood's example, it's very good. I was wrong---I didn not think of this. It's also an example of an active meaning of "live". Another one:

I'm living an active life.

In your sentence, "used to" fits the context nicely.

 

[Barb_D]

I was writing sentences in my head from the first post on, until I got to yours.

Even if you refute this sentence because it means "to reside" instead of "to be alive" there are others.

We had a bunch of hamsters as children. They would live maybe 18 months, or two years, and then we'd move on to the next. We had the highest rodent mortality rate in the neighborhood. But we loved them all!

 

[Masood_S]

Second, how could you justify the use of 'would' in the following example as wrong:

My parents would live in a cottage in the country before they moved to the city centre.

Who says this is wrong? Does a book say it is wrong?

 

[birdeen's call]

I was writing sentences in my head from the first post on, until I got to yours.

Even if you refute this sentence because it means "to reside" instead of "to be alive" there are others.

We had a bunch of hamsters as children. They would live maybe 18 months, or two years, and then we'd move on to the next. We had the highest rodent mortality rate in the neighborhood. But we loved them all!

Which goes on to prove that the use of "would" doesn't have anything to do with stativeness. It's used to indicate repetitiveness.

 

[nouamaneer]

Hello,

Your premise is incorrect. 'live' can be used with 'would'.

e.g.
During the summer months, I would live with my grandparents in their country house.

Cheers

'Would' cannot be used at all to describe a past state, except if combined with an adverb like 'often' to denote a repeated state.

And Masood's example fits this rule. As it contains the adverbial phrase 'during the summer months'

I think that I have got it now! 'Live' is stative as set and exemplified by Birdeen's, but still while active it refers to a state. That is even if it's active it's still stative in meaning?

Am I right or got totally out of line?

 

[nouamaneer]

Who says this is wrong? Does a book say it is wrong?

Yes! I found it an Advanced level coursebook. 'Solutions Advanced', if you are familiar with. It's of Oxford University Press.

 

[nouamaneer]

Which goes on to prove that the use of "would" doesn't have anything to do with stativeness. It's used to indicate repetitiveness.

These are examples of the future in the past. Not pertaining to what we are discussing at all. Aren't they?

Thanks,

 

[birdeen's call]

These are examples of the future in the past. Not pertaining to what we are discussing at all. Aren't they?

Thanks,

Barb's examples? No, those sentences say that the hamsters lived up to two years---in the past. It repeated so we use "would".

 

[nouamaneer]

I was writing sentences in my head from the first post on, until I got to yours.

Even if you refute this sentence because it means "to reside" instead of "to be alive" there are others.

We had a bunch of hamsters as children. They would live maybe 18 months, or two years, and then we'd move on to the next. We had the highest rodent mortality rate in the neighborhood. But we loved them all!

I think your examples are of the future in he past. And to know that, just transfrom the first verb in the set of the sentences into the siple present, and surely you'll feel that.

 

[Barb_D]

Future in the past (or past in the future, I guess) does describe the parents who lived in the one place before they lived in another.

What was the original question, again? Was it about stative verbs in general, or "to live" in particular?

 

[nouamaneer]

Future in the past (or past in the future, I guess) does describe the parents who lived in the one place before they lived in another.

What was the original question, again? Was it about stative verbs in general, or "to live" in particular?

Our original problem is with a sentence I found in one od Oxford's Advenced level coursebooks, namely 'Solutions Advanced'.

It says that the following sentence is ungrammatical:

* My parents would llive in a cottage in the country before they moved to the city center.

Possibilties of correction are: 1- Used to. 2- Lived. 3- Were living.

But my dilemma is in finding an argument to rule out 'Would' in that context. Why????

 

[Barb_D]

It's not ungrammatical if it's telling about something in the past, but from the point in time when that is still in the future.

When my parents met, their dream was to live in the city. They would live in their little town for four years before they got the chance to move to New York in 1975. It took only six months before they realized that country living was really their preference. We all live in that same little town today.

In 1985, you would never have guessed the great future for Joe Schmoe. He had graduated from art school two years prior, and left his job in a commercial art shop. He would live in poverty as a struggling artist for six years before being discovered and named an "overnight" success.