0

I know that would can't be used to refer to a past state, while used to can. How about in this sentence?

When he lived in Paris, he _____ walk on the banks of Seine River

I find that both would and used to can be appropriate to fill the gap. What is the correct answer, because the question only allows 1 answer. Thank you

Tùng
  • 17
  • 2
    Sorry, no, there are billions of correct answers. I do not like either phrasing and recommend the simplicity of "When he lived in Paris, he walked on the banks of Seine River". You could also stuff an adverb like "often" before the word walked but it isn't necessary. – Jesse Ivy Feb 22 '18 at 06:19
  • 2
    Yet both are common, idiomatic English. – Will Crawford Feb 22 '18 at 16:25

1 Answers1

-1

I was always taught that in the examples above, with the used to or would clause coming at the end of the sentence, and after it has been established that past time is involved, both are correct. However, when the clause comes at the beginning of the sentence, before past time has been established, then only used to is correct. "He used to walk on the banks of the Seine River when he lived in Paris'" but not "He would walk on the banks of the Seine River when he lived in Paris."

jpyvr
  • 15
  • No, would can be used equally grammatically in your closing example (“He used to / would walk ...”). It just conveys more intentionality than used to. – Lawrence Oct 24 '20 at 15:28