0

I read this and I'm confused about this sentence.

I loved being able to play the role of somebody, even just for a short time, to try to realise what it might be like to walk in their shoes.

Why has the writer chosen to use "might be" instead of "might have been"? I think because he is talking about a past possibility he needs "might have been". What's the difference?

  • If they are dead or you are wondering about experiencing events that happened at a specific point in the past you'd say "might have been like", if you are curious what their life is currently like you'd say "might be like" – Peter Morris Feb 23 '17 at 22:56
2

With a past-form modal verb the perfect infinitive construction have + past participle does not have a perfect meaning; it marks the eventuality as occurring in the past. For instance, What {might/would/could} be speaks of something possible now or in the future:

It would be exciting to be a rock star.
I would like to know what it would be like to be a rock star.

What {might/would/could} have been speaks of something possible in the past:

It would have been exciting to be a virtuoso pianist in the 19th century.
I would like to know what it would have been like to be a virtuoso pianist in the 19th century.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.