made vs would make Israel surrender

scetis

Senior Member
English- Canadian
I'm trying to figure out why this sentence (highlighted in blue) doesn't seem right? Could someone explain to my the reasons why it's not correct?

Here's the sentence, it's talking about Anwar Sadat and the peace treaty he signed with Israel:

"He had a major role in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 . He put a plan that would make Israel surrender and remove the idea that they are unbeatable."

I'm thinking that "would make" should just be made???
 
  • Nomenclature

    Senior Member
    English - Canada
    "would make" is correct.

    We don't say "put a plan" in English. It might translate as an idiom to your language, but it does not work in English. I would say "proposed a plan" or "offered a plan" here instead.
     

    Wordnip

    Senior Member
    British English
    No, 'would' is necessary because it would happen in the future. What, I think is missing is another 'would': He put a plan that would make Israel surrender and would remove the idea that they are unbeatable."

    PS I agree with Nomenclature.
     

    PlanC

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    "would make" is correct.

    We don't say "put a plan" in English. It might translate as an idiom to your language, but it does not work in English. I would say "proposed a plan" or "offered a plan" here instead.
    How about he set a plan, please?!

    and besides : He put a plan that would make Israel surrender and [remove] the idea that they are unbeatable obsolete." /it's just a thought :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited:

    se16teddy

    Senior Member
    English - England
    1. He proposed a plan that made Israel surrender suggests that his plan was put into effect and Israel surrendered.

    2. He proposed a plan that would have made Israel surrender suggests that his plan was not put into effect and Israel did not surrender.

    3. He proposed a plan that would make Israel surrender sounds to me like a rather confusing mixture of 1 and 2.

    How about he set a plan, please?!
    What do you want to say? Was the plan ever put into effect in any way? Did it stay forever at the planning stage?
     
    Last edited:

    scetis

    Senior Member
    English- Canadian
    1. He proposed a plan that made Israel surrender suggests that his plan was put into effect and Israel surrendered.

    2. He proposed a plan that would have made Israel surrender suggests that his plan was not put into effect and Israel did not surrender.

    3. He proposed a plan that would make Israel surrender sounds to me like a rather confusing mixture of 1 and 2.

    What do you want to say? Was the plan ever put into effect in any way?
    Thanks for the detailed reply! An amazing combination of grammar and politics! To be honest, this statement was made by a student so I can't say since I'm not really an expert on Arab-Israeli relations.

    However, that being said, I think she was trying to say the first one you wrote (that's what I wrote as the correction): "He proposed a plan that made Israel surrender suggests that his plan was put into effect and Israel surrendered."

    And what was originally written, "He proposed a plan that would make Israel surrender..." sounds grammatically confusing. But that may just be me and the day I'm having!

    Hope this helps...
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top