2
1
They emerged from the tunnel and were on the airport highway, with its lights on both sides attached to tall standards. Witty had watched Hardy operating the automobile at first, and had not spoken. He began to play with Yolanda, who was on her mother's lap, before they reached the airport highway. The three adults on the back seat were amused as Yolanda played enthusiastically with her uncle's animated fingers as he reached back over the front seat.
Hardy was completely absorbed with the driving and maintained his speed just below the posted limit. He wished he had known Nancy longer, and he could be sure that he was in love with her.
Perhaps they might be married by this time. He would kiss her for the first time before she boarded the plane bound for California. [The italics are mine.]
His previous thoughts about her had not been desirous, although he was sure they would have soon become lovers. “When she and Mamie and Albert reached California, she promised to send him their address, and he told her that he would be out there very soon. It did not seem proper, somehow, for him to tell her of his secret plans to marry her, so he did not mention it. How would she look when she became pregnant, he thought.
They would have one other child with Yolanda. Nancy's figure was beautiful, and he would have it distorted only once with pregnancy. This would be for their son. [The italics are mine.]
Quid Pro Quo -The Story of a Riot and the Cleavage By David McIntosh
If we set the narrative time as the present tense, the sentence in the fourth paragraph would be:
His previous thoughts about her was not desirous, although he is sure they would have soon become lovers.
I don't understand why the counterfactual 'would have become' is used here. Soon has a past future time reference here, why not just say "although he was sure they would soon become lovers" instead?
Secondly, the past tense verbs in italics in this passage are clearly in free indirect discourse; they narrate the train of thought in Hardy’s mind, which could be otherwise represented in direct speech as:
‘We may/might be married by this time. I will kiss her for the first time before she boards the plane bound for California.’
‘We will have one other child with Yolanda. Nancy's figure is beautiful, and I will have it distorted only once with pregnancy. This will be for our son.’
Since by this time has past time reference, I think the quoted sentence should be "they might have been married by this time" rather than "they might be married by this time". Why did the writer use the bare infinitive form over the perfect infinitive form?
Kinzle B
Posted 2016-01-16T13:28:25.527
Reputation: 7 089
Why do you call this "free indirect discourse"? Because the sentences reveal the character thinking? – Tᴚoɯɐuo – 2016-01-16T17:21:23.233
The author means to have his character think: They might be married already [had he met her sooner]....He was sure they would have soon become lovers. – Tᴚoɯɐuo – 2016-01-16T17:31:33.317
@TRomano In that case, that should be "might have been married". – Kinzle B – 2016-01-16T22:41:43.423
:He's thinking "We might be married already, had we met sooner". Married the state, not married the ceremony. Compare: "We might be cured already, had we received the medicine sooner." – Tᴚoɯɐuo – 2016-01-17T12:46:08.690
"It might be cooked already, had I put it in the oven sooner." – Tᴚoɯɐuo – 2016-01-17T12:54:01.623
@TRomano See this: http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/24463
– Kinzle B – 2016-01-17T14:15:18.987That does not change my opinion. "by this time" refers to the character's "now". "This" is local, "that" is distant.The character is thinking, "if I had met her sooner, we might be married by now". Modal might refers to possibility where there are no prohibitive conditions, in other words, more to a likelihood than to a remote possibility. – Tᴚoɯɐuo – 2016-01-17T14:25:24.303
This question and answers might help: http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/91547/mixed-conditionals-3rd-conditional-which-one-should-be-the-better-option-to-go
– Alan Carmack – 2016-08-13T13:37:01.703That doesn't bother me much; the linked I gave above explained that much better. I'm asking why the context didn't imply any counterfactual protases for "would have become". @AlanCarmack – Kinzle B – 2016-08-13T14:58:00.913