You might think he is/was a good father

[NAL123]

Consider these sentences of mine, please:

1) You might think he was a good father, but he isn't. (The father is still alive.)
2) You might think he is a good father, but he isn't. (The father is still alive.)

Is the meaning of 1 and 2 the same or different? Does "was" in 1 indicate past tense?

 

[teechar]

Is the meaning of 1 and 2 the same or different?

Different.

Does "was" in 1 indicate past tense?

Yes.

 

[Skrej]

I'm not certain what you're looking at here, but I'm going to point out that whether or not he's alive doesn't change the implication that he is/was a bad father.

Perhaps that's not what you're questioning.

 

[Tarheel]

There's no way I would say the first one. However, there is a phrase that works with either one. Can you guess what it is?

 

[NAL123]

Consider this sentence, please:

3) You would think he owned the place, from the way he talks! (he doesn't own)

As far as I know, "owns" also works in (3), with no change in meaning.

In (3) above, the verb "owned" is in past tense, but referring to the present, ie, it does not have a past meaning in the sentence. Some say It's the subjunctive. I was wondering if the "was" in sentence (1) in the OP might have a similar function?

 

[NAL123]

There's no way I would say the first one. However, there is a phrase that works with either one. Can you guess what it is?

Sorry, I have no idea.

 

[Tarheel]

Sorry, I have no idea.

You could add to either of the sentences in #1, "but you would be wrong ". (That's a common expression in American English.)

 

[Tarheel]

Consider this sentence, please:

3) You would think he owned the place, from the way he talks! (he doesn't own IT)

As far as I know, "owns" also works in (3), with no change in meaning.

In (3) above, the verb "owned" is in past tense, but referring to the present, ie, it does not have a past meaning in the sentence. Some say It's the subjunctive. I was wondering if the "was" in sentence (1) in the OP might have a similar function?

Maybe.

 

[teechar]

Note that "You would think that he" basically means "he gives the impression that ...".
Thus,

You would think he owned the place, from the way he talks!

He gives the impression that he owned the place (at some time in the past). He does not own it any longer.

You would think he owns the place, from the way he talks!

He gives the impression that he (currently) owns the place, but in fact, he does not own it.

Some say It's the subjunctive.

That's also possible, to highlight the unlikelihood of something (in this case his current ownership of the place).

 

[NAL123]

Note that "You would think that he" basically means "he gives the impression that ...".
Thus,

He gives the impression that he owned the place (at some time in the past). He does not own it any longer.

He gives the impression that he (currently) owns the place, but in fact, he does not own it.

That's also possible, to highlight the unlikelihood of something (in this case his current ownership of the place).

So, to sum up, in the sentence:

3) You would think he owned the place, from the way he talks! (He doesn't own it.)

the past tense word "owned" can have two meanings depending on the context. In the first one, "owned" refers to a (real) past time, ie, a real past ownership of the place. However, in the second meaning, "owned" refers to a (unreal) present time, ie, an unreal/hypothetical current ownership of the place.

And we can give a similar explanation for the "was" in the following OP sentence:

(1) You might think he was a good father, but he isn't.

Am I right?

 

[teechar]

Yes, and yes.

 

[BobK]

You could add to either of the sentences in #1, "but you would be wrong ". (That's a common expression in American English.)

And in British English (although I wouldn't be surprised if it originated over there).