He suggested that the refrigerator will have to..

Forums: English, Esl, Grammar, English As A Second Language, Modal Verbs
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I happened to see a sentence from an online dictionary.

'He suggested that the refrigerator will have to use more power
when the heat could not dissipate.'

What caught my eyes was 'will have to'.
If the sentence began, like 'He suggests that...'
then, 'will have to..' would make sense.

The verb, however, shown is 'suggested', which would be in harmony with 'would have to', not 'will have to', I guess.

As a Korean, I can't instinctively tell if the sentence sounds okay or not,
which is why I am asking for your advice.

If the sentence I found from a dictionary is okay enough,
could you please help me figure out how?
Thank you in advance.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 5 • Views: 1,308 • Replies: 10

No top replies

@SMickey,

Quote:

If the sentence I found from a dictionary is okay enough,

It isn't

Quote:

If the sentence began, like 'He suggests that…' then, 'will have to..' would make sense.

No, sorry Mick, it wouldn't

Depending on the circumstances but I might have writ

He suggested that the refrigerator will have had to use more power
when the heat couldn't dissipate

He suggested that the refrigerator will have to use more power
when the heat can't dissipate

0 Replies

Try substituting the word "must".

0 Replies

@SMickey,

Quote:

'He suggested that the refrigerator will have to use more power
when the heat could not dissipate.'

The verb, however, shown is 'suggested', which would be in harmony with 'would have to', not 'will have to', I guess.

As a Korean, I can't instinctively tell if the sentence sounds okay or not,
which is why I am asking for your advice.

The sentence is fine and dandy, SMickey. What makes you think that 'suggested' has to be matched with 'would have to' rather than 'will have to'?

1 Reply

@JTT,

The verb 'suggested' is the past form, which would be matched with another past form of a verb 'would', not 'will'.

1. He said he would read the book.
2. He said he will read the book.

Here, what makes more sense is No.1. Am I right?
The same logic, I thought, applies to the sentence in question.

I've studying English for many moons, and it's still too tough.
Would you please comment, JTT?

2 Replies

@SMickey,

It's tough for us too, SMickey.

Quote:

1. He said he would read the book.
He might have read the book by now. This is a statement from the past, maybe a long time ago, we don't know

2. He said he will read the book
This is likely to be a statement from the recent past. He evidently hasn't read the book yet.

"would" signifies intention
"will" indicates purely future
.

So as you can see, the two are very close in meaning. Different people may interpret this differently

2 Replies

@SMickey,

Quote:

The verb 'suggested' is the past form, which would be matched with another past form of a verb 'would', not 'will'.

1. He said he would read the book.
2. He said he will read the book.

Here, what makes more sense is No.1. Am I right?
The same logic, I thought, applies to the sentence in question.

I've studying English for many moons, and it's still too tough.
Would you please comment, JTT?

This is going to come as a big shock to you, SMickey, but 'would' is not the past tense of 'will'. Modal verbs are tenseless in modern English.

What you are seeing in 1 & 2 are examples of WOULD and WILL being used to report some speech. When we report speech we do what is called a backshift but it has nothing to do with tense or time. Only the reporting verb, 'said', is in the past time.

WOULD means the same as WILL - they both refer to a future action that hasn't happened yet.

Here are some links to this topic of reported speech discussed:

http://able2know.org/topic/196746-1

http://able2know.org/topic/188445-1

And here are some discussions of tenseless modal verbs:

http://able2know.org/topic/213954-1

http://able2know.org/topic/217591-1

http://able2know.org/topic/164230-1

Read these and if you have any questions, I know you will, feel free to ask. I'll also address Mctag's post.

1 Reply

@McTag,

1. He said he would read the book.
McTag: He might have read the book by now. This is a statement from the past, maybe a long time ago, we don't know

We have to have context to know whether what McTag says has any validity. It might, but also, most times it doesn't for the simple reason that we don't report old, "long time ago" stuff.

Here's an example:

===================
McTag: I will read the book.

SMickey: [to jtt] What did he say, jtt?

jtt: 1. He said he would read the book.

jtt: 2. He said he will read the book.

============================

See, in 1, it's simply a matter of reporting the speech. McTag couldn't have read the book in the period of time where this discussion took place. WOULD is one choice we have and it has nothing to do with tense or time. It is only a signal that I'm reporting, not directly quoting.

The meaning for 1. & 2. are identical.

2. He said he will read the book

McTag: This is likely to be a statement from the recent past. He evidently hasn't read the book yet.

In the context noted above, and in most situations where you see a reporting type verb - say/said, etc, it is as I have described above.

"would" signifies intention
"will" indicates purely future

Both WILL and WOULD signify intention. WOULD also signifies a future. Again, as explained, it is ONLY a Reported Speech marking tool.

So as you can see, the two are very close in meaning. Different people may interpret this differently

The two are exact in meaning as has been described. Native speakers do not interpret this differently at all. We all intuitively understand how Reported Speech works. It is not a matter of interpretation for meaning. It is a matter of different people mistakenly analyzing the meaning of the grammatical structures.

Reported Speech has long been analyzed as actual past tense and past time when it has nothing whatsoever to do with past tense or past time. ONLY the reporting verb is past tense and past time because most often, that's the only thing that is actually finished.

The original sentence,

'He suggested that the refrigerator will have to use more power
when the heat could not dissipate.'

is almost certainly a report of someone's speech. And, to reiterate, speakers of English have a choice in our language use as regards Direct versus Reported Speech.

0 Replies

@McTag,

Quote:

It's tough for us too, SMickey.

It is not at all tough for native speakers. This is a complete falsehood. Little children know and use these types of grammatical structures all the time and they definitely do not interpret them as instances of past time/past tense.

What is "tough for us" is analyzing language. This is the distinction that McTag has failed to make. This occurs for two main reasons: one, because language is rocket science and it takes a great deal of time and effort to understand how it really works.

The second reason, which ties into the first, is that much of traditional English grammar has been, to speak frankly, a load of crap. Such is the case with the traditional analysis of Reported/Indirect Speech versus Direct/Quoted Speech.

0 Replies

@JTT,

It definitely is a big shock to hear that 'would' is not the past tense of 'will'.
A great number of Koreans who have learned English would feel exactly the same as I did. I gotta print this out and read it one by one carefully.
How can I thank you enough, JTT? I'm so gratetful.
Would it be all right to feel free to ask you some more questions?
Thanks a million.

1 Reply

@SMickey,

Quote:

It definitely is a big shock to hear that 'would' is not the past tense of 'will'.
A great number of Koreans who have learned English would feel exactly the same as I did. I gotta print this out and read it one by one carefully.

I know that the world's ESL/EFLs have all been taught that the modal verbs have tense, SMickey, but it's simply not true. Have you read those threads I pointed you to?

MIGHT is also not the past tense of MAY, nor is SHALL the past tense of SHOULD, or COULD the past of CAN.

I've been teaching ESL for a quarter century and this is one of the biggest confusions faced by students. Modal verbs are difficult enough as it is, but when ESLs are misled with these silly notions it makes it near to impossible to become fluent.

I had some of my Japanese students travel with me to North America and they were puzzled by me saying such things as,

Tomorrow we might go canoeing/ The day after tomorrow we might go hiking/ ... .

They were so confused. They asked, "Why do you say "might" to talk about future things when MIGHT is the past tense of MAY".

Long before that I heard students use COULD as a past tense of CAN and they produced ungrammatical English.

Quote:

How can I thank you enough, JTT? I'm so gratetful.
Would it be all right to feel free to ask you some more questions?
Thanks a million.

You just did thank me. And you're welcome, SMickey.

You go ahead and ask me any questions you want.

0 Replies

He suggested that the refrigerator will have to..

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know