Mennonite verb tense usage

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Okay. I'm new to Mennonite culture, about 6 months now. Something has been burning a hole in my brain and I just can't go any longer without asking about this.

A lot of conversations with Mennonites and non-mennonite Kingdom Christians (who have spent time in Mennonite churches) have included plenty of relating stories of our lives. And here's thing thing I notice:

Mennonites relate things using a specific word tense. I thought this was just the first few people I talked to, but I've found that it's very widespread, across geography and across generations.

Where I would say something like "I went to that college," my conversation partners say "I would've gone to that college." Where I would say "I went to a baptist church growing up, my Mennonote friends say "I would've gone to a baptist church growing up."

Not "We were with the CMC at that time." Instead, it's "We would've been with the CMC at that time." No one says "I started reading early Christian writings around that time." Instead, it's "I would've started reading early Christian writings around that time." No one says "This was 5 years ago." It's "This would've been 5 years ago."

I have been listening to a lot of podcasts, like Anabaptist Perspectives, Armchair Anabaptist, Strength to Strength, Unfeigned Christianity... a lot of these podcasts included guests and lecturers who came from outside the Mennonite world, but this verbal habit has caught them too. I've heard David Bercot and Dean Taylor actually correct themselves. They say things like "I was in the army at this... uh, I would've been in the army at this time." Or "As you know, I was brought up... um, I would've been brought up in the Jehovah's Witnesses church."

Can anyone help give a poor seeker some clarity? Is this a quirk that no one else was aware of? Is there a historical reason for this verbal distinction? A theological one? Or are Mennonites all just talking about what "would have" been?

[Josh]

This is a quality of people with a very heavy PA Dutch cultural background who haven’t spent much time communicating with people from other backgrounds.

[ohio jones]

Ja, I think it is related to the plusquamperfekt tense of the awful German language.

[Szdfan]

Ja, I think it is related to the plusquamperfekt tense of the awful German language.

Falsch. Die Deutsche Sprache ist wunderschoen!

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Ja, I think it is related to the plusquamperfekt tense of the awful German language.

I googled this and that's actually really helpful. It's a past tense that indicates a further past event, to indicate multiple layers of the past. Am I getting that right?

[justme]

very interesting.
i never would have even picked up on that.

and i'm certainly not deficient in communicating with people from other backgrounds.

[Pelerin]

Ja, I think it is related to the plusquamperfekt tense of the awful German language.

Yes it’s the pluperfect, but English has a pluperfect too that’s different from this. English pluperfect would say something like “I had finished college by then.” Whereas Mennonite English render that “I would have finished college by then.” Note that that’s a different tense from the example given, “I would have gone to that college,” which English would render with a simple past tense, “I went to that college.” Does German include some kind of subjunctive modifier (“I would”) for the pluperfect too (the subjunkterplusquamperfekt I assume it would be called, if it exists). It didn’t seem like it from what I read but I’m not really familiar with German.

[Neto]

Not a tense, but a time related usage.
Years ago my mother-in-law told me that "Your new glasses will be in the Berlin office till noon." To me, this implied that they were there already, but at Noon they would be taken elsewhere. But it meant that they would be there BY noon.
(And what's the difference between 'forenoon' and 'morning'?)

[Pelerin]

Not a tense, but a time related usage.
Years ago my mother-in-law told me that "Your new glasses will be in the Berlin office till noon." To me, this implied that they were there already, but at Noon they would be taken elsewhere. But it meant that they would be there BY noon.

Similarly, was it this forum or somewhere else where there was a discussion about whether the question, “Is it raining yet?” wants to know if the rain has started or if it hasn’t stopped.

(And what's the difference between 'forenoon' and 'morning'?)

Forenoon is any time after around 10:00 or 10:30 until noon.

[Neto]

The 'would have' fits better in a subjunctive usage, like "If it were me, I would have done it differently".
[In Banawa: Ha owa amani, fa nima oni owara ne ama oke. Literally: That me if.it.were (CONDITION), that like I do is.not (RESULT) being I-certainly.)