Dreaded them <turning out to be> <being> time-wasters

[Kolridg]

a) I haven't introduced them to you because I dreaded them turning out to be time-wasters.
b) I haven't introduced them to you because I dreaded them being timewasters.

I guess both are correct and practically conveys the same sense that I was concerned that some people might prove time-wasters. Or b) can look only so:

b.2) I haven't introduced them to you because I dreaded they were time-wasters.

?

However, I consider such modification, even if needed, doesn't change the sense even slightly compared with b.1, though I assume that someone may say that assumption about those people is more evident and strict here.

 

[owlman5]

"A" and "b" both look normal to me, Kolridg, and they tell me essentially the same thing.

If you use "b.2", I would prefer to see "that" after "dreaded" although it is possible to omit that word: I haven't introduced them to you because I feared that they were time-wasters. "Dreaded" may be a little too dramatic for this context.

 

[Kolridg]

"Dreaded" may be a little too dramatic for this context.

I guess this is actual for a. b.1 as well?

 

[owlman5]

Your guess is right.

 

[Kolridg]

Thank you

 

[kentix]

I think a is preferable to b because you are concerned about a hypothetical event in the future. The answer to the question will only come in the future when you find out what they turn out to be.

In b it sounds like you already know they are time wasters.

I don't think time wasters should be one word.

 

[ain'ttranslationfun?]

I have a little problem with the tenses. I'd say "I haven't introduced them to you because I [I agree with kentix about 'dread' being too strong] think they're time-wasters." I think that you'd say you thought they would turn out to be time-wasters after the fact to explain why you hadn't introduced them to your interlocutor (it doesn't tell us if they were or weren't).