"I'd chase him down" vs. "I had to chase him down"

Question

I was reading an article and I encountered this sentence:

Sometimes the warchief target would run off and I'd chase him down a field for longer than I care to admit.

To me, if I remove the contraction I also have to add the word "to" (I had to chase him down) so the sentence makes sense.

Is this correct or the meaning changes completely?

score 2 · Accepted Answer · edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38

2

You feel that because you're probably forgetting that I'd can also mean I would.

Because chase is in the present tense and also because to is not in the phrase, the correct uncontracted form is I would chase him down.

So yes, the meaning changes completely in this case.

There is also another question which explains the use of I would vs. I had in contracted form.

edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38

Community

answered May 22 '14 at 19:08

Vitor Navarro

score 1 · Answer 2 · edited Jun 15 '20 at 07:40

1

I'd chase him down is the contraction for I would chase him down

would in this case indicates an action repeated in the past.

edited Jun 15 '20 at 07:40

Community

answered May 22 '14 at 19:02

2 Answers2