English Language & Usage Asked by PsyPhi on May 7, 2021
“He couldn’t foresee devoting himself to anything other than that passionate desire, even if the fire eventually burns him down.” Is ‘burns him down’ correct? The speaker is okay with the fire burning him down in the future if that is the consequence of following his passion.
Couldn't is the past tense of 'can't'; the situation being described is in the past; the burning down was a hypothetical possible consequence; the correct verb form for 'burn' is the future in the past (would burn): he couldn't foresee devoting himself to anything other than that passionate desire, even if the fire would eventually burn him down."
Answered by Michael Harvey on May 7, 2021
You have two options here: backshift both clauses, or keep the original tense.
Assuming the original utterance was:
I can't forsee devoting myself to anything other than that passionate desire, even if the fire eventually burns me down.
Then you can backshift:
He said that...
he couldn't forsee...fire eventually burnt...
or not:
he can't forsee...fire eventually burns...
Both leave it open as to whether he is burnt down by the fire in the end. The outcome can clearly be questioned in both cases.
The addition of a modal auxiliary verb just adds modal meaning to the sentence that wasn't there in the first place.
Answered by DW256 on May 7, 2021
Get help from others!
Recent Answers
Recent Questions
© 2024 TransWikia.com. All rights reserved. Sites we Love: PCI Database, UKBizDB, Menu Kuliner, Sharing RPP