It would probably have been James, the very man who committed the crime

[Superguay]

Hi all,

Can I use the past conditional tense to express assumptions about the past?

Is the following sentence idiomatic?

It would probably have been James, the very man who committed the crime.

Thanks.

 

[teechar]

Can I use the [STRIKE]past conditional tense[/STRIKE] above structure to express assumptions about the past?

You can, but it's not called "the past conditional tense".

Is the following sentence idiomatic?
It would probably have been James, the very man who committed the crime.

That's possible, but do you realize that it suggests two actions/facts?

For example:
A- That's really strange? Who would have called for an ambulance right after the shot was fired?
B- It would probably have been James, the very man who committed the crime.

 

[Superguay]

And if I ommit the comma? Would it change its meaning?

I meant to say that it would have been James and nobody else who committed the crime.

What about putting it that way: It probably would have been James the one who committed the crime.

How can I keep the emphatic structure of the sentence?

Thanks.

 

[teechar]

And if I omit the comma, would it change its meaning?

No.

I meant to say that it would have been James and nobody else who committed the crime.

Then say that!

What about putting it that way: It probably would have been James the one who committed the crime.

No.

How can I keep the emphatic structure of the sentence?

Choose an adverb other than "probably".

For example:

It would most likely/definitely have been James who committed the crime.

 

[Superguay]

I'm sorry to insist, but I've found the following sentence while googling:

This marvelous space was the very one that made human beings fully animated and filled with energy to open up a future business

How it comes that in this one embedding "the very one" doesn't result in an ungrammatical structure?

It would presumably/most likely have been James the very one who committed the crime.

 

[teechar]

I'm sorry to [STRIKE]insist,[/STRIKE] persist, but I've found the following sentence while googling:

This marvelous space was the very one that made human beings fully animated and filled with energy to open up a future business.

How [STRIKE]it comes that in this one[/STRIKE] does embedding "the very one" [STRIKE]doesn't[/STRIKE] not result in an ungrammatical structure?

See below.

[STRIKE]It[/STRIKE] James would presumably/most likely have been [STRIKE]James [/STRIKE]the very one who committed the crime.

Now, it's grammatical.