Grammar question for fic

[bironic]

Hiya! Long time no post ('cept for this morning). Have been working, reading, haunting everyone else's LJs and doing beta-work like a fiend, which is always fun, and went to Boston for a few days, where I was introduced to the wonder that is Robot Chicken, went for a gorgeous walk around Walden Pond, and watched a walking-stick-wielding, "obnoxious and disliked" John Adams complain about a man named James Wilson (in the musical 1776). And now I'm writing again—have four projects going, hooray!

In that vein, a question for the grammarians out there about subordinating conjunctions and modal verbs. Suppose a story is being told entirely as… potential, with "he would" this and "she would" that. If a sentence goes, "He would do something before/after/until someone else did something," what's the proper verb construction for the second half of the sentence? Did? Would do? Were to do? For example:

He'd take her up to his office, get her comfortable on the couch, hand her a tissue. He'd sit next to her and rub her shoulder until she calmed down a little.

"Calmed." Past tense sounded right here.


She would moan and arch into him, then bring her arms around his back when he nudged her knees apart with one of his own.

"He nudged" or "he would nudge"? Not as clear to me as in the last example.


Her breathing would hitch before she'd whisper, "I'm not—I've never—"

See, now here I thought the second "would" would fit best. (This sentence is going to change anyway, because I'm taking out all the dialogue.)

Gah. There's got to be a rule for this. And I hope it's to use past tense, because all those "would"s are going to get annoying if they have to be used in every instance. Does it depend on whether the preceding conjunction is "before," "after," "when" or "until"? Sigh. I don't think I ever had a lesson on modal verbs in English class.

Comments

[theninth.livejournal.com]

I think "She would moan and arch into him, then bring her arms around his back when he nudged her knees apart" is fine.

I assume that he is imagining what she would do in response to his actions? If you look at it the other way round (sort of), it would be something like "If I nudged her knees apart with one of my own, she would wrap her arms around me and arch up."

It's also perfectly fine to use more "woulds" although it might get a bit heavy with them.

"She would moan and arch into him, then bring her arms around his back when he nudged her knees apart with one of his own. Then he would (whatever it is he would do next)."

[bironic.livejournal.com]

He's imagining the entire scenario, both his actions and hers. It's in present tense when he's in bed fantasizing and future/conditional/modal/whatever for the fantasy itself.

Am pondering your first example, which I can also see working with "nudge" or "were to nudge." Come to think of it, an if/then construction would vary the sentence structure in the story in general; thanks! Still, there's no avoiding the other structure.

[bell]

doing beta-work like a fiend

You don't say. ^_~

[bironic.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if I should be thankful for your graciousness when I nitpicked your story or if I should feign anger because you're partly responsible for me writing this Fic of Troublesome Tenses.

[bell]

I should feign anger because you're partly responsible for me writing this Fic of Troublesome Tenses.

Think of it as your punishment for doing me a favor! ...No, wait, that doesn't sound right. Think of it as a reward: this way you'll clear up all your doubts on Troublesome Tenses and it shall plague you NO MORE.

[secondsilk.livejournal.com]

The first and second sentences are both right with the past tense, clamed and nudged.

The third one. I think you can chose between:
Her breathing would hitch before she'd whisper and
Her breathing would hitch before she whispered

In the second example it is more certain that she will whisper whatever it is. I think it works better with 'before' because the conditional from the first clause. Unlike using 'and' where it has to be Her breathing would hitch and she'd whisper. I would use the past tense with all of 'after' 'when' and 'until'.

Um, it's all very confusing. I've never had a lesson on English modals.

[bironic.livejournal.com]

I would use the past tense with all of 'after' 'when' and 'until'.

That is where I am leaning. I wasn't paying as close attention to tenses while writing as I am now, so that third example with "would" will probably change.

Thanks for having a go at figuring this out!

[secondsilk.livejournal.com]

My mother's a linguist, so we have occasional dinner table conversations about language use.
I just love picking apart the meaning of sentences.

[daasgrrl.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid I don't know from grammar (I'm from the 'it sounds right' school of thought, generally) but I just wanted to ask, does this mean you saw 1776? Is it good? :)

[bironic.livejournal.com]

Sorry, was off the computer for a while there due to a cold.

I did see 1776, and it was pretty good -- certainly much better than the only other production I'd seen, which was done at the high school where my mom taught, when I was maybe 15. It's a little too long for its own good (running time apprx. 2:45) and some of the songs get repetitious, and the two women in it (Mrs. Jefferson and Mrs. Adams) are mostly there for affirmative action purposes (though the friend I saw it with loved Mrs. Adams), but it's jaunty, helps give personalities to stodgy historical figures and context/realism to a dusty and often-idealized event, and makes history cool in a way things like the movie National Treasure don't quite pull off. The power plays between representatives of the northern and southern colonies and the divides among each, sometimes even within a single state with multiple representatives, were interesting to follow. Obviously behind all political movements are individuals, and much as we'd like to think otherwise, sometimes decisions are based on who's pushing a bill or law or what-have-you rather than what the bill says, so it was cool to see what was going on between the people hashing out the wording of the document and voting, though I don't know enough about the Declaration signers to know how accurate the characters were depicted. But overall enjoyable, especially if you have some interest in early American history.

...gone on long enough.

[daasgrrl.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that. Looked it up on Amazon and I was actually surprised it was such an old musical - I must have heard of it when it was revived. May have to give it a try - the only other musical I can think of based on American history is Ragtime, which was excellent. Oh, and Assassins of course...

[bironic.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the pamphlet at the theater mentioned that the film adaptation of the play was done during the Vietnam era and that the Johnson or Nixon administration ordered parts excised for being anti-war or somesuch, so the play was, what, 1960s? There was also a comical murmur from the audience at one of John Adams' "still oh-so-relevant to our times" lines about how if we give up our civil liberties to protect ourselves in a time of war we'll end up living in a dictatorship. (*gasp awe OMG Iraq*)

[evilstorm.livejournal.com]

Dropping by to say, friending you because you look interesting. *grins*

[bironic.livejournal.com]

Well, that's the first time I've earned a friend through a post about grammar. Welcome! I like you already. :)

[evilstorm.livejournal.com]

*giggles* It was actually a more general thing, what with the House stuff and all. But grammar always helps, yeah! And something about your writing style--not just fiction, I mean the way you use words--pings as being shiny. Therefore, friending. I like shiny people.