a political monster of some sort who would <have lost><lose>

< Previous | Next >

JJXR

Senior Member
Russian
Hello to all,

Thanks for reading my post.


Source:

He would <have lost><lose> his reflective side.

Sample sentences:

1. He refuses to let people know him fully. That's the way he has chosen to live his life. I think if he ever lost that sense of the private John Kerry, he would become a political monster of some sort who would have lost his reflective side.

2. He refuses to let people know him fully. That's the way he has chosen to live his life. I think if he ever lost that sense of the private John Kerry, he would become a political monster of some sort who would lose his reflective side.

Question:

I have changed the initial version of the sentence provided in the source. I wonder if the bolded tenses work in the above two sentences. I think that they do, and that the choice of "would lose" vs. "would have lost" changes the sequence of events:

Sentence #1:
By the time he becomes a political monster, he will already have lost his reflective side.

Sentence #2:
He will first become a political moster and then he will lose his reflective side.


Thanks a lot for any comments, corrections or suggestions!

Regards,
JJXR
 
  • JJXR

    Senior Member
    Russian
    Thanks e2efour.
    I think if he ever lost that sense of the private John Kerry, he would become a political monster of some sort who had lost his reflective side.
    What is the order of events in the version with "had lost"? I will use the present simple tense for the purpose of discussion:

    Sequence A:
    1. He loses his reflective side.
    2. He loses that sense of the private John Kerry.
    3. He becomes a political monster of some sort.

    Sequence B:
    1. He loses that sense of the private John Kerry.
    2. He loses his reflective side.
    3. He becomes a political monster of some sort.
     

    lingobingo

    Senior Member
    English - England
    The sentences in the OP would both be improved if the final who were changed to and.

    I think if he ever lost that sense of the private John Kerry, he would become a political monster of some sort and [would] lose/have lost his reflective side.

    The use of lose makes losing his reflective side a consequence of becoming a political monster.

    The use of have lost makes losing his reflective side an integral part of becoming a political monster.
     

    JJXR

    Senior Member
    Russian
    I would change your sample sentence 1 to ...who had lost his reflective side.
    Sentence #2:
    He will first become a political moster and then he will lose his reflective side.
    Can I change "would lose" to "lost" in sentence #2? If so, does my interpretation of sentence #2 still make sense?

    I think if he ever lost that sense of the private John Kerry, he would become a political monster of some sort who lost his reflective side.
     

    JJXR

    Senior Member
    Russian
    Thanks lingobingo.
    Are the sentences in the OP wrong or ungrammatical? Or are they grammatical but unnatural?
    How can the sentences in the OP be described if the word "who" remains unchanged?
     
    Last edited:

    e2efour

    Senior Member
    UK English
    I have already given you one answer in #2.

    Which of these sentences is more likely?
    As I went down the street, I saw a woman who lost her way.
    As I went down the street, I saw a woman who had lost her way.
     

    JJXR

    Senior Member
    Russian
    Thanks e2efour.
    Which of these sentences is more likely?
    As I went down the street, I saw a woman who lost her way.
    As I went down the street, I saw a woman who had lost her way.
    I think they are both likely depending on what is meant:

    As I went down the street, I saw a woman who (later) lost her way.
    As I went down the street, I saw a woman who had lost her way (an hour before).

    I think if he ever lost that sense of the private John Kerry, he would become a political monster of some sort who (later) lost his reflective side.
    This is why I thought the above quoted sentence was correct.
     
    Last edited:

    e2efour

    Senior Member
    UK English
    Without any context, I saw a woman who lost her way is rather unlikely if it means she lost her way after you saw her.

    I really think it's a meaningless sentence unless you add something like later or then.
     

    JJXR

    Senior Member
    Russian
    Thanks e2efour.
    I really think it's a meaningless sentence unless you add something like later or then.
    2. He refuses to let people know him fully. That's the way he has chosen to live his life. I think if he ever lost that sense of the private John Kerry, he would become a political monster of some sort who would lose his reflective side.
    Does the word "lost" work instead of "would lose" in sentence #2 if I add "later" or "then":

    I think if he ever lost that sense of the private John Kerry, he would become a political monster of some sort who later/then lost his reflective side.
     

    e2efour

    Senior Member
    UK English
    I don't have much sympathy with the idea that he would become a political monster who went on to lose his reflective side.
    If you think that this makes sense, then lost is possible.

    We are not told anwhere what it means to say that someone loses their reflective side, so we end up with a sentence which need to be interpreted.
    I think that if he loses his sense of the private John Kerry, this is the same as losing his reflective side.
     

    JJXR

    Senior Member
    Russian
    Thanks e2efour.
    I think if he ever lost that sense of the private John Kerry, he would become a political monster of some sort who lost his reflective side.
    So, if I understand you correctly, the quoted sentence can be interpreted in this way:

    I think if he ever lost that sense of the private John Kerry, he would become a political monster of some sort who was in the habit of losing his reflective side.


    Am I right?
     

    e2efour

    Senior Member
    UK English
    No: a monster who lost his reflective side means nothing to me. If you want it to mean something that happened to the monster afterwards, you have to say who went on to lose or who later lost.

    I don't understand where you get was in the habit of losing from. I would say you can only lose your reflective side once.
     

    lingobingo

    Senior Member
    English - England
    Just to put things into perspective, this is the actual published quote used in the previous thread:

    He refuses to let people know him fully. That's the way he has chosen to live his life. I think if he ever lost that sense of the private John Kerry, he would feel he had become a political monster of some sort. He would have lost his reflective side.
     

    JJXR

    Senior Member
    Russian
    Thanks e2efour.
    No: a monster who lost his reflective side means nothing to me. If you want it to mean something that happened to the monster afterwards, you have to say who went on to lose or who later lost.
    Can I also use "would later lose" and "would go on to lose", like this:

    I think if he ever lost that sense of the private John Kerry, he would become a political monster of some sort who would later lose his reflective side.

    I think if he ever lost that sense of the private John Kerry, he would become a political monster of some sort who would go on to lose his reflective side.
     

    e2efour

    Senior Member
    UK English
    Yes, I suppose so. But it would be better if you made up a sentence without taking ones from a website whose interpretation is debatable.

    I also agree with lingobingo in #4 that and [would] later lose seems better than who would lose.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top