#fowkys
1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)
Our volunteers look into many questions every day; sometimes it takes them a little while to answer.
Make it descriptive, including relevant context, but also to the point. This way you improve your chances of getting a more relevant and specific answer.
auraient is a different verb though, avoir (to have) , allaient is aller (to go)
Why is it « allaient être » and not « irait être »? Well, this is describing the near future but in the past. The near future is « aller » plus an infinitive like « Je pense que je vais me doucher en 5 minutes (I think that I'm going to take a shower within five minutes) ». This sentence here is in the present: you are saying it now. But what if it was the next day and you were just writing it? Well, that near future « aller », « je vais », will be shifted in the past into the imperfect:
« Je pensais que j'allais me doucher en 5 minutes (I thought that I was going to take a shower within five minutes) »
Since the near-future « aller + infinitive » already describes the future – if that wasn't clear by the name – you can't use tenses that imply the future like the simple future (j'irai me doucher) or the conditional* (j'irais me doucher) with this structure.
* The conditional is technically a past tense but it describes the future of the past so it sorta works as a future tense
Sorry, I meant « seraient », le conditionel. So, why use “allait être” and not “seraient”, could I use the conditionel and what would be the differences betweeen both of them?
I got that “allait être” is something that you thoughtht was going to happen, but what is the difference between it and the conditionel?
seraient would be acceptable
It's the difference between the near future (futur proche) and the simple future (futur simple) but in the past, basically
Je pense que j'aurai de nouvelles chaussures
=> Je pensais que j'aurais de nouvelles chaussures
Je pense que je vais avoir de nouvelles chaussures
=> Je pensais que j'allais avoir de nouvelles chaussures