1

Is it OK to use "would + be+ verb(ing)" construction when we talk about future projections or predictions. like in this example:

Over the 50-year period or By 2067, people aged 15 to 59 would still be predominating the other age groups in the sense of majority

  • 1
    If you are not sure about the future, use "might", not "would" (you may also use "could"). If you are sure, use "will". – MorganFR Feb 28 '17 at 14:24
  • what would say about that sentence ; "there are plans to upgrade the lobby so that the gallery would include an education facility with an adjacent storage and plant room" . mine is pretty close to this sentence but here would is used to signify future probabilty. – Cavid Hummatov Feb 28 '17 at 14:57
  • My opinion is: yes, but why? Why do you want to say "will be predominating" instead of "will predominate"? – stangdon Feb 28 '17 at 15:08
  • @stangdon not will but would what I'm asking about – Cavid Hummatov Feb 28 '17 at 15:12
  • @CavidHummatov - Yes, but the issue is the same: why "be predominating" instead of "predominate". MorganFR's point is also pretty good. We usually say "X will do Y in the future" or "X might do Y in the future", not "X would do Y in the future". – stangdon Feb 28 '17 at 15:38
0

@CavidHummatov it is possible to use this verb tense, but not with this particular combination of verbs. Things either predominate or they don't, there is no ongoing "predomination" possible. It works better if you choose a subject where continual action makes logical sense:

That old mill has stood by that river since the 1500s, through war and plague and famine and drought. If the rest of the world goes to hell over the next fifty years, as seems likely, after the dust settles, that mill would still be standing.

Note that I have to provide a pretty complicated setup to justify the verb tense. It's not something you use casually, but to set the image of a very particular time and situation.

  • but "would" solely could be used, did I get it right? By 2050, people aged 15 to 59 would still predominate the other age groups in the sense of majority – Cavid Hummatov Feb 28 '17 at 17:57
  • Would is generally used in a hypothetical, not the simple future. There's no "if" statement in your sentence, so there's no reason to use "would". – Andrew Feb 28 '17 at 17:59
  • then how does the example that has been previously approved as grammatically correct by the community, differ from the one in question ; "there are plans to upgrade the lobby so that the gallery would include an education facility with an adjacent storage and plant room" – Cavid Hummatov Feb 28 '17 at 18:14
  • There's an unspoken hypothetical in that sentence. – Andrew Feb 28 '17 at 18:36
  • could you make it clear for me to see? I can't realize any hypothetical . – Cavid Hummatov Feb 28 '17 at 18:42
0

I admit I have struggled to answer this. At first glance your sentence just looks wrong, but the more I analyse it, I can't explain why it seems wrong.

The best explanation as to why you may be struggling with this expression, and why I, as a native English speaker find it problematic, is because there are several similar words with varying meanings and tenses.

There are the two root words:

  • Dominate (verb) - to have control over
  • Dominant (adj) - more important, strong, or noticeable than anything else of the same type

These words are absolute. Someone, or something either is or is not dominant. Likewise, a person either dominates, or does not dominate another.

The words predominate and predominant have slightly different meanings. They refer to the most common, so they are not really absolute.

Assuming you meant to imply "dominating", I would prefer the phrasing:

"By 2067 people aged 15 to 59 would still dominate the other age groups in the sense of majority."

or, at a push:

"By 2067 people aged 15 to 59 would still be dominating the other age groups in the sense of majority."

On the other hand if you meant to use the word "predominant", I would express it this way:

"By 2067 people aged 15 to 59 will still be the dominant age group."

0

First, since there is no condition involved, "will" is a better fit than "would". For future projections, "would" requires some sense of uncertainty or conditional dependence. @Andrew's answer covers this in detail. For example:

If the city were to expand its transit network, they would bring in an extra five million in annual revenue.

Second, you have two very different time spans here:

  1. Over the fifty-year period: This is a duration. You would use this to express something happening over this entire time, not a single event that happens at the end of it.

  2. By 2067: This is a time point. You would use this to point to an event, and not to a progression.

For example:

Over the fifty-year period, the ozone layer will continue to deplete, and, by 2067, carbon-dioxide concentration will be 1.5 times the current level.

Third, "predominate" is defined as "to be the largest in number or importance" by Cambridge. So, it is not an action, but rather a state. A continuous form sounds unnatural. It's like saying "problems will be existing". "Exist", like "predominate", already implies an ongoing state. The continuous form is ambiguous at best. Are you saying that they will be in the process of becoming predominant?

Putting all of this together, I would use the following:

By 2067, people aged 15 to 59 will predominate population demographics.

Now, I don't know the full context, but if you had even a vague conditional built in, you could use "would".

Many statistical models forecast a rapid growth in working population over the next fifty years. If these prove accurate, by 2067, people aged 15 to 59 would outnumber all other demographic groups.

The fact that we have a condition on the model's accuracy, the "would" fits more naturally.

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.