Why "whould have paid"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

englishhobby

Key Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Why would have paid and not would pay (for a repeated action in the past) is used in the following passage:
<...>The term used for both types of settlement in medieval documents is the
vill, which does not specifically denote a village, although it could often be coterminous with one, but a unit comprising households and their associated landholdings. Inhabitants of both types of settlement would have paid rents and often owed labour dues to their landlords. <...>
?
 

bhaisahab

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
Ireland
Why would have paid and not would pay (for a repeated action in the past) is used in the following passage:
<...>The term used for both types of settlement in medieval documents is the
vill, which does not specifically denote a village, although it could often be coterminous with one, but a unit comprising households and their associated landholdings. Inhabitants of both types of settlement would have paid rents and often owed labour dues to their landlords. <...>
?

Why not?
 

englishhobby

Key Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation

Because in many grammar books I read it is stated that you can only use would have done something when talking about imaginary past actions, not real ones, when talking about something that DID NOT happen. But in the example there is historical information, actions which actually often happened in the past, not imaginary ones - the people DID pay rents, to rephrase it - they USED TO pay rents, so why was the third conditional used and not just would plus infinitive to speak about a repeated action in the past?

Here's a typical example of grammar explanations I read in all grammar books I have seen so far:

If I would have done something vs If I had done something - e Learn English Language

Do you mean to say that would have paid = would pay = used to pay in this context?
Inhabitants of both types of settlement would have paid rents and often owed labour dues to their landlords.
 
Last edited:

englishhobby

Key Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
I am beginning to understand - the historical facts described in my example are not facts proper but "historical suggestions"? In this way uncertainty is expressed, so we could rephrase the sentence in question as follows:
Perhaps, inhabitants of both types of settlement paid rents and often owed labour dues to their landlords.
Am I right?
 
Last edited:

bhaisahab

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
Ireland
Do you mean to say that would have paid = would pay = used to pay in this context?
Inhabitants of both types of settlement would have paid rents and often owed labour dues to their landlords.

Yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top