1. The WordReference Forums have moved to new forum software. (Details)

so that people at a distance would hear

Discussion in 'English Only' started by colum4, May 6, 2014.

  1. colum4 Senior Member

    China-Chinese
    Hi,
    My firend gives me a sentence: If he had asked "Did I just say that loud?", he would have been wondering whether he had raised his voice above the normal volume so that people at a distance would hear.

    I have a question: In this part--so that people at a distance would hear, can I use would had heard to replace would?

    Because in my view, the event people hear happens before wonder, they both happen in the past.

    Am I right?

    And, is this part--so that people at a distance would hear right?

    The right sentence that I think is
    so that people at a distance would had heard.

    Thank you.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2014
  2. JulianStuart

    JulianStuart Senior Member

    Sonoma County CA
    English (UK then US)
    Not this strange sentence again :(!

    You have asked specifically about "would hear". It is fine. The "so that people would hear" does not have to be converted to past tense because of the "he had raised" puts the hearing in the past already.

    . The other thread was about "loud" and the suggestions were to add "enough" to make it into a reasonable sentence.

    .
     
  3. colum4 Senior Member

    China-Chinese
    Hi,
    Thank you for your help.

    This is another question, not the original. And would hear is pant tense now I think?

    I think so that people at a distance would had heard is right.

    Thank you.


     
  4. JulianStuart

    JulianStuart Senior Member

    Sonoma County CA
    English (UK then US)
    "would had heard" is never right.
    You could write the same sentence with "so that people at a distance had heard" with a slight difference in meaning but still grammatically correct.
     
  5. colum4 Senior Member

    China-Chinese
    Hi JS,
    Sorry, I make a mistake.

    I mean would have heard.

    So, this sentence---so that people at a distance would have heard is right?

    It is the past future perfect tense.

    Thank you.

     
  6. EStjarn

    EStjarn Senior Member

    Spanish
    I don't think "would have heard" would be correct here. It becomes clearer if we simplify the sentence versions.

    Original: He had raised his voice above the normal volume so that people at a distance would [be able to] hear.

    Suggested: He had raised his voice above the normal volume so that people at a distance would have heard.

    With "would have heard", we would be treating the first clause as though it was conditional, triggering a third conditional pattern: 'had' in the conditional clause, and 'would have' in the main clause. But there is no conditional clause here.
     
  7. colum4 Senior Member

    China-Chinese
    Hi,
    Thank you for your help.

    I do not think would have done as conditional. I think it is past future perfect tense.

    He had raised his voice above the normal volume is Past Perfect Tense, so I think there should be would have done--past future perfect tense.

    Because the action raise and here happened in
    the past of past, and hear will happen after the action raise.

    Am I right?

    In English, is
    past future perfect
    tense exist?

    Thank you.
     

Share This Page