The Inuit would put a small piece of the feather over the hole and stand with bone harpoon ready and when the seal came into the hole the air pushing ahead of its body would ruffle the feather and the hunter would lunge with the harpoon and bury the barded head in the back of the seal.
Why do three different verb forms in this passage occur with “would”? What does the use of “would” convey here?
The verb “would” in this situation expresses what happened in the past. Yes this verb conveys here because the whole sentence is in the past. (What else?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The three different verbs “would” in this passage occur because the author wanted to express how the Inuit hunt in the past and they are still repeating this same action nowadays. By using the verb “would”, the author also describes how the seal comes out from the water and ruffles the feather that gets the hunter’s attention in the past and this action are repeating nowadays and also in the future. The use of “would” conveys that the hunting’s skill and action of the seal already happened in the past and will keep happening nowadays and even in the future. In other words, the use of “would” is telling readers about a scene that already happened in the past, is happening now and also will happen in the future. (This is just an opinion. If it made much more confusion, I sincerely opologize.)
Consider this sentnce in the first comment here:
The three different verbs “would” in this passage occur because the author wanted to express how the Inuit hunt in the past and they are still repeating this same action nowadays.
In terms of content, part of this sentence is accurate and part is inaccurate. Which part is which?
Post a Comment