MSGID: 2:221/360.0 5d4e8f60   
   REPLY: 1:153/7715.0 d4c6ac53   
   PID: JamNNTPd/Cygwin32 1.3 20190208   
   CHRS: LATIN-1 2   
   TZUTC: 0300   
   TID: hpt/w32-mvc 1.9.0-cur 2019-01-08   
   Hi, Dallas Hinton!   
   I read your message from 08.08.2019 11:34   
      
      
    AK>> "it is a mirror of the original land bridge that (had) connected   
    AK>> the island to the mainland more than 500 years ago."   
      
    AK>> I can't understand the sense of "would have connected" in "the   
    AK>> bridge that would have connected the island to the mainland more   
    AK>> than 500 years ago."   
      
    DH> I'd suggest that this is journalese -- a newspaper/magazine writer   
    DH> trying to sound more erudite than the material deserves!   
      
    DH> Having said that, the phrase "would have...." is possibly short   
    DH> for "if this bridge still existed it would have....", but it's a   
    DH> horribly cumbersome way of saying, as you suggested, "used to   
    DH> connected".   
      
   Why? We have the exact time in the past (500 years ago). So, we can use the   
   Past Indefinite (the Simple Past) if we speak of the real fact that the bridge   
   connected two points at that time.   
      
   Bye, Dallas!   
   Alexander Koryagin   
   english_tutor 2019   
      
   ---   
    * Origin: nntps://fidonews.mine.nu - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/19 123 15/2 16/0 120/544 123/130 131 203/0 221/1 6 360   
   SEEN-BY: 226/17 227/114 229/354 426 1014 240/1120 2100 5138 5832 5853   
   SEEN-BY: 249/206 317 261/38 280/5003 317/3 320/119 219 322/0 757 342/200   
   SEEN-BY: 640/1384 2454/119   
   PATH: 221/1 320/219 240/5832 229/426