second or third conditional

Question

Hoping to avoid all the ceremony that would normally be due his rank as a visiting sovereign, the tsar traveled incognito.

Since it's a past tense narrration the author might have used the third conditional ('would have been due'). As I see it if a native speaker uses the second conditional when talking about the past they look from the past into the future: when the third conditional is used they look at the past from the present .
Is this correct?

chasly - supports Monica · Answer

Since it's a past tense narration

It depends how far into the past and what may have changed since that time.
If the author is writing during the 21st century about something that happened in the 19th century then they might say  "the ceremony that would normally have been due".  This indicates that such a ceremony may not exist in the present. Of course, if there were tsars in the present, they would be afforded some ceremony but maybe a different ceremony.
If, on the other hand, the author was writing during the 19th century about something that had happened shortly beforehand, they would write, "the ceremony that would normally be due his rank".  This is because, at the time of writing, the ceremony would still be appropriate and normal.
Does this answer the question?

second or third conditional

One Answer

Add your own answers!

Ask a Question