There used to be(would) a big tree in my neighbor's house

Status
Not open for further replies.

keannu

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
Is the reason why "would" can't be used for a past state that "would" can only denote actions, so it means "a big tree was one time and disappeared and later it was there, and disappeared, then third time,,fourth time, etc"?

ex)There used to be(would be(x)) a big tree in my neighbor's house.
 
Last edited:

5jj

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

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
Is the reason why "would" can't be used for a past state that "would" can only denote actions, so it means "a big tree was one time and disappeared and later it was there, and disappeared, then third time,,fourth time, etc"?

ex)There used to be(would(x)) a big tree in my neighbor's house.
You can say, "When I got home from school, there would always be a glass of milk and some cookies waiting for me."

Why have you given "would" and "would(x)" as an alternative to "used to be"? Surely you mean "would be".
 

keannu

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
You can say, "When I got home from school, there would always be a glass of milk and some cookies waiting for me."

Why have you given "would" and "would(x)" as an alternative to "used to be"? Surely you mean "would be".
My grammar book says past states can't be described by "would", but your example seems to be a habitual action not to mean a state, so it can be understood as a habitual action.
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
My grammar book says past states can't be described by "would", but your example seems to be a habitual action not to mean a state, so it can be understood as a habitual action.
It can be described as an action, but no action is described.
Obviously someone is putting the milk and cookies there, but that isn't in the sentence.
 

keannu

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
It can be described as an action, but no action is described.
Obviously someone is putting the milk and cookies there, but that isn't in the sentence.
Seeing your example, I think it would be proper to say "would" is not for past habitual actions but past habitual events. and that's why it can't be used to describe a long-term state like "There used to be a big tree".
 

emsr2d2

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
Seeing your example, I think it would be proper to say "would" is not for past habitual actions but past habitual events. and that's why it can't be used to describe a long-term state like "There used to be a big tree".

You're right. You can't say "There would be a big tree" instead of "There used to be a big tree".

You might use "would" to describe a habitual observation about the tree.

Every time I saw the big tree, I would think it had grown another couple of inches.
Each time I drove past the big tree, I would utter an involuntary "Wow!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top