1

Can someone explain to me the difference of usage between went on and would later go on, and in what situations each are appropriate?

Examples:

Debuting in 2000, the [musical] group went on to become the best-selling artist of all-time

and

Debuting in 2000, the [musical] group would later go on to become the best-selling artist of all-time.

jimm101
  • 10,753
Mindful Living
  • 19
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Not without the context. Do you have sentences with the phrases? – deadrat Dec 15 '16 at 05:03
  • For example: Debuting in 2000, the [musical] group went on to become the best-selling artist of all-time OR Debuting in 2000, the [musical] group would later go on to become the best-selling artist of all-time. – Mindful Living Dec 15 '16 at 05:08
  • In essence, they both mean the same thing, but the first is in the past tense and the second is in the conditional. I can't really provide an answer because it's a bit difficult to explain. They are usually interchangeable, though the second has a sort of "reflective" feel to it. – Dog Lover Dec 15 '16 at 05:10
  • 1
    @DogLover Not conditional. It's better analyzed as past reporting. A prescient music critic in the year 2000 might have said at the time, "They will go on to become the best-selling artist of all time." From the vantage point of today, seventeen years later, we can backshift to the past (will->would) to say "They would go on...." – deadrat Dec 15 '16 at 05:14
  • So in your opinion, which is a more "correct use" in this sentence: went or would go on? – Mindful Living Dec 15 '16 at 05:19
  • There's no "more correct use" -- both may be correct. It may be possible to make a judgement on which is more appropriate in your case, but it depends on context, as deadrat has commented. While you've given two possible sentences, there isn't enough information about the document itself which you're writing to come up with an answer to "which is more appropriate here?" We don't have enough data on "here". – Andrew Leach Dec 15 '16 at 08:42

1 Answers1

2

Went on to is normally used when discussing a direct progression, often as part of a career. A example would be "At the time the Governor of California was Ronald Regan, who went on to be President of the USA". In this case there was a direct relationship between being elected Governor and being elected President and the whole sentence refers to Reagan's political career. Also there was very little time between his being Governor and becoming President.

However if someone was writing a biography of actress Diana Lynn they might write "In 1951 Diana made Bedtime for Bonzo with Ronald Regan, who would later go on to be President of the United States". In this case the main subject is neither Regan nor politics; there is no direct relationship between his appearence in the film and his becoming President and the event being discussed was a long time before the presidential election. Any one of these conditions is sufficient reason to use the would later go on form.

BoldBen
  • 17,171