• Would have connected

    From Alexander Koryagin@2:221/360 to All on Thu Aug 8 18:00:46 2019
    Hi, ALL!

    -----Beginning of the citation-----
    Cornwall: English Heritage builds Tintagel Castle footbridge
    A dramatic footbridge connecting two halves of Tintagel Castle on the north coast of Cornwall - the legendary birth place of King Arthur - is opening on Sunday.

    Built by English Heritage, it is a mirror of the original land bridge that would have connected the island to the mainland more than 500 years ago.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-49280060/cornwall-english-heritage-builds-tintagel-castle-footbridge
    ----- The end of the citation -----

    This passage:
    "it is a mirror of the original land bridge that would have connected the island to the mainland more than 500 years ago."

    Something strange. If that bridge existed 500 years ago we should write:

    "it is a mirror of the original land bridge that (had) connected the island to the mainland more than 500 years ago."

    I can't understand the sense of "would have connected" in "the bridge that would have connected the island to the mainland more than 500 years ago."

    Bye, ALL!
    Alexander Koryagin

    ---
    * Origin: nntps://fidonews.mine.nu - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)
  • From Dallas Hinton@1:153/7715 to Alexander Koryagin on Thu Aug 8 11:34:36 2019
    Hi Alexander -- on Aug 08 2019 at 18:00, you wrote:

    "it is a mirror of the original land bridge that (had) connected the
    island to the mainland more than 500 years ago."

    I can't understand the sense of "would have connected" in "the
    bridge that would have connected the island to the mainland more
    than 500 years ago."

    I'd suggest that this is journalese -- a newspaper/magazine writer trying to sound more erudite than the material deserves!

    Having said that, the phrase "would have...." is possibly short for "if this bridge still existed it would have....", but it's a horribly cumbersome way of saying, as you suggested, "used to connected".

    Cheers... Dallas

    --- timEd/NT 1.30+
    * Origin: The BandMaster, Vancouver, CANADA (1:153/7715)
  • From Alexander Koryagin@2:221/360 to Dallas Hinton on Sat Aug 10 12:33:22 2019
    Hi, Dallas Hinton!
    I read your message from 08.08.2019 11:34


    "it is a mirror of the original land bridge that (had) connected
    the island to the mainland more than 500 years ago."

    I can't understand the sense of "would have connected" in "the
    bridge that would have connected the island to the mainland more
    than 500 years ago."

    I'd suggest that this is journalese -- a newspaper/magazine writer
    trying to sound more erudite than the material deserves!

    Having said that, the phrase "would have...." is possibly short
    for "if this bridge still existed it would have....", but it's a
    horribly cumbersome way of saying, as you suggested, "used to
    connected".

    Why? We have the exact time in the past (500 years ago). So, we can use the Past Indefinite (the Simple Past) if we speak of the real fact that the bridge connected two points at that time.

    Bye, Dallas!
    Alexander Koryagin
    english_tutor 2019

    ---
    * Origin: nntps://fidonews.mine.nu - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)
  • From Dallas Hinton@1:153/7715 to Alexander Koryagin on Tue Aug 20 00:50:15 2019
    Hi Alexander -- on Aug 10 2019 at 12:33, you wrote:

    horribly cumbersome way of saying, as you suggested, "used to
    connected".

    I should have said "used to connect" ... dunno where my mind was!

    Why? We have the exact time in the past (500 years ago). So, we can
    use the Past Indefinite (the Simple Past) if we speak of the real
    fact that the bridge connected two points at that time.

    I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the presence of a land bridge x years
    ago is still the subject of some debate.



    Cheers... Dallas

    --- timEd/NT 1.30+
    * Origin: The BandMaster, Vancouver, CANADA (1:153/7715)