[Grammar] tense,,,

[son5018]

Thanks for your answer! Munch!!

I've got one more actually.

He decided that he would like to visit them all someday.

In this sentence, I can't understand why 'would like to' is used.
It's past tense, so it should be 'wanted'.

May I used 'would like to' both in the present tense and the past tense?

Thanks...^^

 

[5jj]

Thanks for your answer! Munch!!

I've got one more actually.

He decided that he would like to visit them all someday.

In this sentence, I can't understand why 'would like to' is used.
It's past tense, so it should be 'wanted'.

May I used 'would like to' both in the present tense and the past tense?

Thanks...^^

In indirect speech, where the reported verb is frequently back-shifted, would like frequently remains unchanged:

I would like to visit you tomorrow.
He said that he would like to visit me the next day.

However, in other situations, other constructions may be used:

1. I would like to visit you. = It is my present wish to visit you in the future.
2. I would like to have visited you yesterday = It is my present wish that I had visited you yesterday. An expression of present regret.
3. I would have liked to visit you yesterday. It was my wish yesterday that I could visit you. I did not visit you. An expression of past regret.

Unfortunately the ideas conveyed by both #2 and # 3 may be expressed by some speakers as :

4. I would have liked to have visited you yesterday.

Teachers and writers may consider #4 to be incorrect, but as such utterances are often heard, learners can be confused.

 

[Pedroski]

He decided that he would like to visit them all someday.

He decided. Past tense.
He wanted. Past tense. You may want many things. You have wanted many things. A night out with a famous pop star, a house in the country, a million dollars in your bank account. The simple act of wanting something does not make it happen. I wanted to play the piano. I still can't.

He decided he wanted to visit them all someday. No visiting has taken place. That may happen, someday. This is a statement of intent.
He decided he would like to visit them all someday. No visiting has taken place. That may happen, someday. This is a statement of intent, tempered by 'would', a subjunctive, which tells us that visiting is a possibility, not a certainty. Many factors may affect the future, and make a visit impossible. The future, apart from death and taxes, is always uncertain!

 

[5jj]

The future, apart from death and taxes, is always uncertain!


True, Pedrowski, but it is neither true nor certain that would is a subjunctive.

 

[Pedroski]

What is it then? The past tense of 'will'?

 

[5jj]

What is it then? The past tense of 'will'?

Some writers consider it to be the past (or remote or distanced) form of will.

Others treat will and would as separate modals.

Some writers in the past called a form such as would visit the Conditional Tense of visit.

This is confusing. But, though would-constructions are sometimes used in English when other languages use a subjunctive mood, it is not itself a subjunctive in English.

 

[e2e4]

/A learner/

I know nobody like my long posts.;-)
Would I, Could I, May I, Must I, Have I, Can I, Should I, Will I, Shall I?:roll:

I ought to say this bellow. (You just don't take it too seriously.:mrgreen

Will is modal.
Would is modal.

Modals never change their forms but have a lot of functions.

I don't like when people say "would" is the first auxiliary in "I would have liked to go to Libya.".
And the second auxiliary is "have" here.
This combination consists of modal+auxiliary+main (lexical) verb, for me, a learner.
Even though "would have liked" describes a situation that wasn't fulfilled because it couldn't have been fulfilled, I can't easy say "would" is past subjunctive here. Would is modal here as well but do a job in the sense of the past subjunctive together with the auxiliary and the past participle of the lexical verb.
Modals and their relationships to the rest of English are to complicated to be explained easily.

In addition

Will you tell me..?
Would you tell me..?
I see no any past in these two sentences?

"Would" isn't the past tense of "will".

tricked ~ past simple____to trick ~ infinitive____ will trick ~ will form to express future

It is interesting that I have never heard that will is the future tense of would!

Neither "will" is the future tense of "would" nor "would" is the past tense of 'will".
Must be "something" between would and will if we want to talk about tenses.

would________ "something"_____________will

Then "would" will be the past tense of that "something" and "will" be the future tense of that "something".
When someone define that "something", gimme a shout!

Would isn't verb at all for me. As I already said it belongs to special kind of words called modals.

I would ocean.

Is "I"subject, "would" predicate and "ocean" object?
Does "I would ocean." make any sense?
Maybe "I ought to ocean." make sense to someone but
not to me.

 

[5jj]

e2e4 wrote:
I don't like it when people say "would" is the first auxiliary in "I would have liked to go to Libya.".
And the second auxiliary is "have" here.
This combination consists of modal+auxiliary+main (lexical) verb, for me, a learner

All verbs coming before a full/lexical verb and making up part of the tense/aspect/modal verb phrase are auxiliaries. Quirk et al refer to DO, BE and HAVE as primary verbs; they can operate as full and as auxiliary verbs.
They refer to can, may, will, shall,, could, might, should, would and must as modal auxiliaries; others refer to them as modal verbs or just modals. Whatever we call them, they do function as auxiliaries.

 

[5jj]

e2e4 also wrote: Will you tell me..?
Would you tell me..?
I [STRIKE]see no[/STRIKE] can’t see any past in these two sentences[STRIKE]?[/STRIKE]

"Would" isn't the past tense of "will".

In the second example, would is a distancing form of will . The so-called past tenses frequently act to distance the situation in:
Time: She came yesterday.
Reality: If only I had more money.
Directness: Did you have a moment, please? What was your name?

[FONT=&quot]If we are going to use the words past tense when discussing the underlined verbs in those utterances, then it is legitimate to use it of would.

[/FONT]

 

[e2e4]

/A learner/

If modals are verbs please let me know their either the past continuous, past perfect, and future perfect forms.
No that forms.
Is there any verb that can not be put into either the present continuous tense, past perfect or future perfect tense, or any of the rest of the tenses?
I don't think so. (Except continuous forms are not my choice for static verbs.)
If modals cannot be put into either past continuous tense, or the past perfect or future perfect or any other tense actually, they are not verbs and they cannot be auxiliaries because auxiliaries are a subgroup of verbs.

What would be the imperative of would? Shall maybe?

No way.

I've just recalled the passive voice.
I would have liked to go to Africa.
He said he would have liked to go to Africa.

I would do it.
She said she would do it.

Any changes? No.

Auxiliary "to have" changes its form. Could be "have" or "had".

What could "ought to" can be except "ought to"? Shall is always shall and not shull.
Modals are not a subgroup of verbs but different class.
Grammar changes main verbs and auxiliaries but not modals.

In English, there are modals, verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, etc.
Nobody agree to me about this. They will, one day.

 

[5jj]

/A learner/

If modals are verbs please let me know their either the past continuous, past perfect, and future perfect forms.
One of the things that distinguishes the modal sub-group of the auxiliary sub-group of verbs is that they do not have these forms. That does not mean that they are not verbs.


In English, there are modals, verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, etc.
Nobody agree[STRIKE]s [/STRIKE] [STRIKE]to [/STRIKE]with me about this. I am not surprised.

They will, one day.

Perhaps. When pigs fly.

 

[Pedroski]

There is no 'future tense' in English. There is therefore no future tense of a modal verb. The future is indicated using various devices.

'would' is the past tense of 'will', and as such is also the form of the past subjunctive of 'will'. The present subjunctive is 'will'.
'would' in 'I would like to visit them someday.' could I suppose be analysed as the optative case, but in English, how will you tell the difference between optative mood and subjunctive mood? They were merged long ago. As it is something wished for or desired, I think, on reflection, optative is the better choice here.

'someday' indicates future time, which precludes analysing 'would' as the past tense. cf 'In my childhood, my father and I would play chess for days on end.' Here 'would is the past tense of 'will'.

 

[5jj]

There is no 'future tense' in English. There is therefore no future tense of a modal verb. The future is indicated using various devices.

'would' is the past tense of 'will', and as such is also the form of the past subjunctive of 'will'. The present subjunctive is 'will'.
'would' in 'I would like to visit them someday.' could I suppose be analysed as the optative case, but in English, how will you tell the difference between optative mood and subjunctive mood? They were merged long ago. As it is something wished for or desired, I think, on reflection, optative is the better choice here.

'someday' indicates future time, which precludes analysing 'would' as the past tense. cf 'In my childhood, my father and I would play chess for days on end.' Here 'would is the past tense of 'will'.

Pedroski, you will find English a lot less confusing if you do not try to fit English into the pattern of other languages. There is no optative mood in English. For many speakers there is no subjunctive. Ideas that are expressed in other languages through the use of these moods are expressed in different ways in English.

Remember, too, that the names past and present for tenses are just that: names. Many of the so-called present tenses can be used to refer to past, present, future and general time; so can the so-called past tenses. Until all writers can agree on different names, we are stuck with these unhelpful ones, but this doesn't mean that a past tense form MUST refer to a past time..

 

[e2e4]

/A learner/

/A learner/

There is no optative mood in English. For many speakers there is no subjunctive.

Some guys say that optative mood is used for expressing desire, wish.

1. I would like to be a flower.(desire)
2. If I were you I would like to be a flower.(advice)

In #1 "would like to be" optative mood to tell desire.
In #2 "would like to be" is not the optative mood because of the rest of the sentence even though the same words are used.

"were" is the past subjunctive in this sentence.
"were" is the simple past tense of the verb "to be".

Seems to me that if I asked am I wrong seeing this this way I would get several different answers.

 

[5jj]

/A learner/

/A learner/


Some guys say that optative mood is used for expressing desire, wish.

1. I would like to be a flower.(desire)
2. If I were you I would like to be a flower.(advice)

In #1 "would like to be" optative mood to tell desire.
In #2 "would like to be" is not the optative mood because of the rest of the sentence even though the same words are used.

"were" is the past subjunctive in this sentence.
"were" is the simple past tense of the verb "to be".

Seems to me that if I asked am I wrong seeing this this way I would get several different answers.

In my previous answer I wrote: For many speakers there is no subjunctive. I did not write all speakers. In your #2, I would use the subjunctive were, but many speakers today would use was. I suppose that some grammarians might classify some expressions as optative, though I can't find one in the last century who has claimed that there is an optative mood in English.

Your #2 seems to be a hypothetical statement of fact, not advice. If someone asked in what guise they should go to a fancy dress ball, then if I were you I would be a flower might be offered as advice.