Johnson's capture when fighting in China changed the course of the war. Is incorrect. "John's capture" would not have been fighting.

Question

A sentence from my teacher:"Johnson's capture when fighting in China changed the course of the war." Is incorrect. "Johnson's capture" would not have been fighting.If I were the teacher, I would also use WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN, but I couldn't figure out the rule to distinguish this and WOULD NOT BE, because my sense tells me WOULD NOT BE is the past tense, which seems to fit in. Could you help me?

Blue Jay · Accepted Answer

"Johnson's capture when fighting in China changed the course of the war." looks fine to me.
Fighting refers to Johnson, not Johnson's capture. i.e. fighting is what Johnson was doing at the time he was captured.
When denotes when he was.
It means "Johnson's capture (i.e. the capture of Johnson) when (or while) he was fighting in China changed the course of the war."

CalifJim · Answer

Johnson13"Johnson's capture when fighting in China changed the course of the war" is incorrect. "Johnson's capture" would not have been fighting.

That's a purist's interpretation, and I can't agree completely, but that's not your question anyway.

Johnson13my sense tells me WOULD NOT BE is the past tense

would (not) be — non-past (present or future)
would (not) have been — past

If Johnson were sitting here with us (now), he would not be fighting (now).
If Johnson had been sitting here with us (then), he would not have been fighting (then).

CJ

Johnson13 · Answer

Thanks.

As an undergraduate, I understand all the conditonal rules, but could you tell me why in this situation we must regard the thing as a hypothetical situation? Of course Johnson's capture was not fighting, but WOULD can be used to refer to a simple past action, can't it? A great problem is, I can't find a written rule that I can tell other people why I use WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN instead of WOULD NOT BE.

CalifJim · Answer

Johnson13I can't find a written rule that I can tell other people why I use WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN instead of WOULD NOT BE.

Not everything in English has a corresponding rule that is written down somewhere. I don't think you'll find anything of this nature. And anyway, it's fairly easy to find two different written sources that give contradictory rules on some topics, so there's nothing sacred about written rules.

Johnson13could you tell me why in this situation we must regard the thing as a hypothetical situation?

No one said that you had to regard it as a hypothetical situation. It's not the reader's (listener's) choice. It's the writer's (speaker's) choice. Whoever wrote this or said it was regarding it as a hypothetical situation, and at the time of writing this or saying it, they were casting their mind into the past, when Johnson was captured in the war. Had their mind been working differently at the time they wrote or said it, it might have come out differently.

CJ

Johnson13 · Answer

Thanks.

Sorry for being unclear.

In modern English, if we refer to being impossible, the present tense is, for example, COULDN'T BE BETTER; the past tense is COULDN'T HAVE BEEN BETTER. The operative word is IMPOSSIBLE, so every time as a non-native English speaker I write a sentence like this, I ask myself whether its meaning is IMPOSSIBLE; if yes, then I follow this memorized rule; if no, and it refers to ABILITY, then I tell myself I have to say CAN for the present tense, COULD for the past tense.

But how about WOULD? Regarding the situation I mentioned in the first post, does WOULD have another meaning than its usual meaning of future (I've finished Cambridge Advanced, Michael Swan's Practical English Usage, Martinet's Practical English Grammar, and all the grammar books I got in senior secondary years, but I can't find anything useful)

Fivejedjon · Answer

Johnson13In modern English, if we refer to being impossible, the present tense is, for example, COULDN'T BE BETTER; the past tense is COULDN'T HAVE BEEN BETTER.

Although could is often used for present or future situations, it is not really a present-tense form

Johnson13if yes, then I follow this memorized rule; if no, and it refers to ABILITY, then I tell myself I have to say CAN for the present tense, COULD for the past tense.

If it is innate or learned ability, this is largely true, but if it is the ability that makes it possible to do something, then it is not.

I can play the piano.
I could play the piano when I was six.

I can finish the work tonight.
I could finish the work last night.

CalifJim · Answer

Johnson13 how about WOULD? Regarding the situation I mentioned in the first post, does WOULD have another meaning than its usual meaning of future

Of course you don't really mean 'future'; you mean 'future of the past'. That's the usual meaning of 'would' — if it has any meaning of at all that we can consider usual. 'will' is the word that expresses the future (of the present).

In imagined (hypothetical) situations, 'would' has a non-past meaning and 'would have' has a past meaning, as described earlier in this thread. This is the operative principle in the example you presented in your original post. 'would be' should be compared to 'is', and 'would have been' to 'was'. These are the hypothetical forms of the verb to be.

Since you're talking about the contents of a sentence, you can take either viewpoint: outside the sentence or inside the sentence.

Outside the sentence it's a group of words that you are examining in present time. "is fighting" and "would be fighting" are appropriate when speaking within this point of view.

Inside the sentence it's a statement about something that happened in the past. It includes the ideas of fighting and capture, none of which are happening in the present moment. "was fighting" and "would have been fighting" are appropriate when speaking within this point of view.

Other than this I don't really know what you're looking for. I don't think I can help you more than that.

CJ

Johnson13 · Answer

Johnson13 · Answer

Thanks, but you've already help me a lot. can't thank you enough. Near the end of term at university, I have been tied up with some work, but I'll be back.

In fact, I'd studied the OALD:

You use was/were able to or manage (but not could) when you are saying that something was possible on a particular occasion in the past: I was able to/managed to find some useful books in the library. ? ~~I could find some useful books in the library.~~ In negative sentences, could not can also be used: We weren’t able to/didn’t manage to/couldn’t get there in time. Could is also used with this meaning with verbs of seeing, noticing, understanding, etc: I could see there was something wrong.

Exactly the same as what fiveje says; I mentioned the present/past tense difference simply because I wanted to make things less complicated; by PRESENT TENSE I refer to events of course including future ones. I didn't mention this, because surely our teachers here know grammarians are fond of including WILL/WOULD into the present tense category for its lack of inflection. Of course, thanks fiveje.

Johnson13 · Answer

In 'Religion and Science', an essay by CS Lewis, there is a sentence:
'For instance, take a story like the Virgin Birth. We know now that such a thing couldn't happen.'

Obviously the writer is commenting on a past thing (though it exists in myth only), why not COULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED?

Does it mean CS Lewis is merely stating a present situation? (I've thought it over; if Lewis were talking about the present, it would make the essay loose and change the meaning: that would mean CS Lewis thinks the Virgin Birth actually happened while a repeat is not possible NOW.

Johnson's capture when fighting in China changed the course of the war. Is incorrect. "John's capture" would not have been fighting.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬