Hi, I find this in the OALD:
I wouldn’t have dared to defy my teachers.
=> Do you think this sentence natural? I mean they use “wouldn’t have dared” though there is no condition. (It would be better if there were another clause like “I wouldn’t have dared to defy my teachers if they hadn’t been so strict with me”)
What do you think?
Many thanks
Nessie.
I also find this one a bit strange:
Hundreds of people today defied the ban on political gatherings. (also found in the OALD)
=> Why do they use the past tense when there is “today” in the sentence? I suppose present or present perfect tense may be better, mayn’t they?
Many thanks
Nessie.
Hi Nessie
That sentence is fine. You will often find ‘would’ used without an IF clause. As I see it, the broader context will tell you more. For example, if someone had just told you about how they used to defy their teachers in school, your sentence might imply this: “I wasn’t like you. Even if I had wanted to (defy my teachers), I wouldn’t have dared to defy my teachers.”
.
.
The simple past tense is used with the word ‘today’ because ‘today’ tells you when something happened. The use of the word ‘today’ simply specifies the time – i.e. they are reporting something that happened earlier today. The activity (the protest/demonstration) began and ended earlier today.
.
[color=indigo]Yea, Amy, I understand that ‘would’ without an IF clause may be used with an implied broader context, but I find this strange because there is no broader context in this case (you see, the OALD gives the sole sentence as an example of the word “defy”.
The simple past tense is used with the word ‘today’ because ‘today’ tells you when something happened. The use of the word ‘today’ simply specifies the time – i.e. they are reporting something that happened earlier today. The activity (the protest/demonstration) began and ended earlier today.
.
[/quote]
[color=indigo]What do you think if ‘today’ here is understood as “nowadays”, Amy?
Actually, the sentence first stroke me with the idea that “today” means “nowadays”, because I somehow feel the verb ‘defy’ here express a state rather than an action (it is defined in the OALD as ‘to refuse to obey or show respect for sb in authority, a law, a rule, etc’. If the sentence is worded this way:
Hundreds of people today demonstrated against the ban on political gatherings
then I agree that the past tense is better.
Hi Nessie
You always need to look at the whole sentence. You cannot decide how words are used or what they mean in a sentence if you isolate each word and ignore the others. You need to look at words in context – in combination with the rest of the words.
Basically, in order to “defy a ban on political gatherings” you would have to “hold at least one political gathering” in spite of the ban. Holding a political gathering is not a state – it is an activity. The use of the word ‘today’ along with the simple past tense tells you that “hundreds of people gathered together for political reasons” at a time today which was before now (i.e. in the past). The sentence suggests that the political gathering has also now ended. The act of defiance was the act of gathering together for political reasons.
.
That sounds 100% like something a native speaker would say (Note: a “would” clause without an “if”, right there!). Totally natural, sounds fine.
I think this is a case of rules getting in the way of understanding 
To put it simply: If I went to work and then came back the same day, I could still say “I went to work today,” because even though it is still ‘today’, the action is already complete and thus in the past.
By the way, Nessie, I’ve never heard anyone actually use the contraction “mayn’t”.
.
Hi Nessie,
Lest you should be downcast at using ‘mayn’t’, fear not, it’s just dandy.
Alan
Yes, Amy, I understand that I must look at the whole sentence. And last time when explaining to me the use of ‘would’ in this sentence, you gave the context:
But my trouble is that I find this sentence without any broader context, and from the sole sentence itself I really can’t understand why “wouldn’t have dare” should be used instead of “didn’t dare”. I’m terribly sorry for my dumbness. 
First of all, I think i can understand the past tense can be used in a sentence in which there is the word “today” (as Amy explained last time). But now I’m afraid I may understand the sentence wrongly - that’s why I can’t understand your explaination:
Hundreds of people today defied the ban on political gatherings.
=> From this sentence, I get the idea that in a certain society, there is the ban on political gatherings, and more and more do people in this society are opposed to that. I think the “political gatherings” don’t necessarily happen earlier “today”, but it’s just like a fact in that society. Some people may like to hold political gatherings, but it is illegal in that society, and people feel it unfair, so nowadays many people oppose the ban. Because the word “defy” is defined as “to refuse to obey or show respect for sb in authority, a law, a rule, etc”, I think “defy” doesn’t necessarily mean these people take the action of holding political gatherings, or demonstrate against the ban. Perhaps it just mean nowadays many people disapprove that ban. So… I’m wrong? :roll: [b]
No surprise you don’t, Amy This is what I find in the Longman Dictionary:
mayn’t
may·n’t /ˈmeɪənt/ BrE old-fashioned
the short form of ‘may not’
(By the way, I know 'mayn’t isn’t used very often. I just theoretically learnt it at school. I’ve never seen it used in real life either 
But I want to use it once to see if you native speakers have any idea 
So you mean the word’s just a bit old-fashioned, and it’s still quite all right to use it?
Thank you all very much.
Nessie :)[/b]
Lest Nessie misinterpret comments about the usage of mayn’t, compare:
I’ve understood about “mayn’t” now, Amy, but what about the first sentence? (I still can’t get it :()
Are you referring to this sentence, Nessie?
.
Yes, I do, Amy. Please have a look at this again:
Yes, Amy, I understand that I must look at the whole sentence. And last time when explaining to me the use of ‘would’ in this sentence, you gave the context:
But my trouble is that I find this sentence without any broader context, and from the sole sentence itself I really can’t understand why “wouldn’t have dare” should be used instead of “didn’t dare”. I’m terribly sorry for my dumbness.
First of all, I think i can understand the past tense can be used in a sentence in which there is the word “today” (as Amy explained last time). But now I’m afraid I may understand the sentence wrongly - that’s why I can’t understand your explaination:
Hundreds of people today defied the ban on political gatherings.
=> From this sentence, I get the idea that in a certain society, there is the ban on political gatherings, and more and more do people in this society are opposed to that. I think the “political gatherings” don’t necessarily happen earlier “today”, but it’s just like a fact in that society. Some people may like to hold political gatherings, but it is illegal in that society, and people feel it unfair, so nowadays many people oppose the ban. Because the word “defy” is defined as “to refuse to obey or show respect for sb in authority, a law, a rule, etc”, I think “defy” doesn’t necessarily mean these people take the action of holding political gatherings, or demonstrate against the ban. Perhaps it just mean nowadays many people disapprove that ban. So… I’m wrong? :roll:
Thank you very much.
Nessie.
Hi Amy,
May I know you idea, please? 
Thanks a lot,
Nessie.
Hi Nessie
It is generally the case that any given idea can be expressed in a number of different ways. The person could have said “I didn’t dare” in order to simply refer to a 100% real past. However, if someone says “I wouldn’t have dared”, then some sort of theoretical aspect has been introduced into the sentence. It is often not particularly important to know exactly what the theoretical condition is, or it can just be assumed from the broader context. In your sentence, the usage is similar to a type 3 IF sentence. I would simply interpret the unspoken condition to be something very general, i.e. similar to “If I had been in your shoes” or “If things had been different”. It means not only “I didn’t dare” but also “I wouldn’t have dared even if the situation had been different from the one I really had”.
Regarding ‘today’:
In a nutshell, since the person used the simple past tense (!!!) to report the act of defying a ban, you should not understand the word ‘today’ to mean ‘nowadays’. It happened earlier today. It’s as simple as that.