# todo crecía - would grow/used to grow/growing



## la_machy

Txiri, entonces si quisiera decir " ...en el verano todo *crecía *a su propio ritmo...",
puedo usar:

"...everything *used to grow* at its..."
"...everything *would grow* at its..."
"...everything *growing* at its..."




Saludos


----------



## NewdestinyX

la_machy said:


> Txiri, entonces si quisiera decir " ...en el verano todo *crecía *a su propio ritmo...",
> puedo usar:
> 
> "...everything *used to grow* at its..."
> "...everything *would grow* at its..."
> "...everything *growing* *was growing* at its..." * +*
> "...everything* grew* at its..."
> 
> Saludos


Chao, Grant


----------



## la_machy

Muuuchas gracias, Grant.

Pero dime una cosa. En español, cuando uno narra algo, generalmente se usa el imperfecto, aba-ia. El uso de este tiempo gramatical y no del pasado simple, le da un tono especial a una narración. Aunque también podríamos usar el pasado simple.
¿En inglés sucede lo mismo?


Saludos


----------



## Forero

Hola, LaMachy.

Cada forma tiene su propio matiz, que dependerá del contexto:

_used to grow_ = "solía crecer" / "crecía" / "creció" / ...
_would grow _= "crecería" / "crecía" / "quiso crecer" / ...
_was growing_ = "estaba creciendo" / "estuvo creciendo" / "crecía" / ...
_grew_ = "creció" / "crecía" / ...


----------



## NewdestinyX

la_machy said:


> Muuuchas gracias, Grant.
> 
> Pero dime una cosa. En español, cuando uno narra algo, generalmente se usa el imperfecto, aba-ia. El uso de este tiempo gramatical y no del pasado simple, le da un tono especial a una narración. Aunque también podríamos usar el pasado simple.
> ¿En inglés sucede lo mismo?
> 
> 
> Saludos


Realmente no. Es decir que no tenemos el mismo sentir con narraciones como en castellano donde hay un propio tiempo del verbo para expresar un pasado "de narración" - lo que sea. Pero sí puedo decirte que lo más 'especial' podría ser el 'would + verbo'.. Aunque would también se usa para la condicional en inglés se usa tanto como para el pasado 'imperfecto'; un pasado con calidades durativas. Nuestro pasado 'simple' también da tal calidad/sentir.

_In those days my mother would make us a picnic and we would go to one of the local parks. After lunch we played for hours and hours._

Aunque el inglés allí usa uno u otro para expresar aquellas experiencias habituales en el pasado - el castellano usaría solo 'imperfecto'. También podemos usar 'used to'... pero demasiados 'used to' sonarían un poquito 'esforzado'. En nuestro 'pasado de narración' no empleamos 'was + -ing' a menos que fuera un pasado muy recién.

Lo que hace que nuestras narraciones suenen 'especial' de verdad es el uso de los diferentes tiempos pasados del verbo en 'un' párrafo.

Espero que eso te ayude un poco,
Grant


----------



## la_machy

NewdestinyX said:


> _In those days my mother would make us a picnic and we would go to one of the local parks. After lunch we played for hours and hours._
> 
> _Aunque el inglés allí usa uno u otro para expresar aquellas experiencias habituales en el pasado - el castellano usaría solo 'imperfecto'_. También podemos usar 'used to'... pero demasiados 'used to' sonarían un poquito 'esforzado'. En nuestro 'pasado de narración' no empleamos 'was + -ing' a menos que fuera un pasado muy recién.
> 
> _Lo que hace que nuestras narraciones suenen 'especial' de verdad es el uso de los diferentes tiempos pasados del verbo en 'un' párrafo._
> 
> Espero que eso te ayude un poco,
> Grant


 

Definitivamente sí me ayuda bastante, Grant.

Hasta hace poco me resultaba un poco didicil comprender que "would+verb" también se puede usar para el imperfecto en español, pues yo lo asociaba al condicional solamente, pero creo que ya lo entendí.

Gracias a tí y a Forero por tomarse el tiempo de explicarlo.


Saludos


----------



## Txiri

la_machy said:


> Txiri, entonces si quisiera decir " ...en el verano todo *crecía *a su propio ritmo...",
> puedo usar:
> 
> "...everything *used to grow* at its..."
> "...everything *would grow* at its..."
> "...everything *growing* at its..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saludos


 
Hm, please note those are "cheat sheet" tricks for speakers of English learning Spanish ... it's not to say you couldn't use them in reverse, however.  In the ex. you presented, I would translate it *"out of context"*  as
   In the summer everything grew at its own pace.  

Spanish speakers will have to learn cues for rendering the English.  If you see a "would" you have to learn if it's an imperfect, habitual action in the past, or a conditional would.  Obviously, there are almost always textual cues.  Hope this helps?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Txiri said:


> Hm, please note those are "cheat sheet" tricks for speakers of English learning Spanish ... it's not to say you couldn't use them in reverse, however.  In the ex. you presented, I would translate it *"out of context"*  as
> In the summer everything grew at its own pace.
> 
> Spanish speakers will have to learn cues for rendering the English.  If you see a "would" you have to learn if it's an imperfect, habitual action in the past, or a conditional would.  Obviously, there are almost always textual cues.  Hope this helps?


Exactly.. but a couple posts later I added the English 'simple past' as another possibility for '-ía'/'-aba'.. But those are the 'only' 4 possibilities: used to, would, was/were + -ing, simple past

Right?
Grant


----------



## Forero

NewdestinyX said:


> Exactly.. but a couple posts later I added the English 'simple past' as another possibility for '-ía'/'-aba'.. But those are the 'only' 4 possibilities: used to, would, was/were + -ing, simple past
> 
> Right?
> Grant


"Historical present" may also work, depending on context. It seems more "imperfect" to me than all the others except _would_.

It sometimes helps to throw in a gratuitous _always_ or _usually_ in English, just as it sometimes helps to throw in a _ya_ for almost the opposite idea in Spanish.

In the current context, I would express "imperfect" by using _reports_ in the plural:

_In my last job, I entered production reports.

_


----------



## chileno

la_machy said:


> Definitivamente sí me ayuda bastante, Grant.
> 
> Hasta hace poco me resultaba un poco didicil comprender que "would+verb" también se puede usar para el imperfecto en español, pues yo lo asociaba al condicional solamente, pero creo que ya lo entendí.
> 
> Gracias a tí y a Forero por tomarse el tiempo de explicarlo.
> 
> 
> Saludos




Yo siempre lo tomo como condicional...




> _In those days my mother would make us a picnic and we would go to one of the local parks. After lunch we played for hours and hours._



Cambia todo eso a condicional (como está) y dime que entiendes. ;-)


----------



## pijopajolero

chileno said:


> _In those days my mother would make us a picnic [basket?] and we would go to one of the local parks. After lunch we played for hours and hours._


After what lunch?

The change of tense is too abrupt. If that was a habitual action, you'd say: we'd play for hours, or we used to play for hours.


----------



## Forero

pijopajolero said:


> After what lunch?
> 
> The change of tense is too abrupt. If that was a habitual action, you'd say: we'd play for hours, or we used to play for hours.


I prefer using _played_ to having three consecutive _would_s.  And "used to play" really does seem abrupt to me. 

I might say "used to" first, to set the events securely in the past:

_In those days my mother used to make us a picnic lunch and we would go to one of the local parks. Afterwards we __would play_(or _played_) _for hours and hours._


----------



## pijopajolero

Forero said:


> I prefer using _played_ to having three consecutive _would_s.  And "used to play" really does seem abrupt to me.
> 
> I might say "used to" first, to set the events securely in the past:
> 
> _In those days my mother used to make us a picnic lunch and we would go to one of the local parks. Afterwards we __would play_(or _played_) _for hours and hours._


I'm not an expert on English language, but your version works for me.


----------



## chileno

> Originally Posted by *chileno*
> 
> 
> _In those days my mother would make us a picnic [basket?] and we would go to one of the local parks. After lunch we played for hours and hours._





pijopajolero said:


> After what lunch?
> 
> The change of tense is too abrupt. If that was a habitual action, you'd say: we'd play for hours, or we used to play for hours.




What do you mean after what lunch?

My mother made us a picnic so we could spend a day at the local park, after the lunch hour of that day in the park.  Right?

And I guess is not that abrupt once you read it like I do.

But then again. I am not a native speaker. Just someone who pretends to be bilingual, and hardly does it.


----------



## pijopajolero

chileno said:


> My mother made us a picnic (?) so we could spend the day at the local park, after the lunch hour of that day in the park.  Right?


But you weren't talking about a particular day!


----------



## chileno

NewdestinyX said:


> Realmente no. Es decir que no tenemos el mismo sentir con narraciones como en castellano donde hay un propio tiempo del verbo para expresar un pasado "de narración" - lo que sea. Pero sí puedo decirte que lo más 'especial' podría ser el 'would + verbo'.. Aunque would también se usa para la condicional en inglés se usa tanto como para el pasado 'imperfecto'; un pasado con calidades durativas. Nuestro pasado 'simple' también da tal calidad/sentir.
> 
> _In those days my mother would make us a picnic and we would go to one of the local parks. After lunch we played for hours and hours._
> 
> Aunque el inglés allí usa uno u otro para expresar aquellas experiencias habituales en el pasado - el castellano usaría solo 'imperfecto'. También podemos usar 'used to'... pero demasiados 'used to' sonarían un poquito 'esforzado'. En nuestro 'pasado de narración' no empleamos 'was + -ing' a menos que fuera un pasado muy recién.
> 
> Lo que hace que nuestras narraciones suenen 'especial' de verdad es el uso de los diferentes tiempos pasados del verbo en 'un' párrafo.
> 
> Espero que eso te ayude un poco,
> Grant





pijopajolero said:


> But you weren't talking about a particular day!



 No, and there shouldn't be any particular day.


----------



## Forero

I read it as consecutive events, the whole sequence being repeated on multiple occasions:


Mother made us a picnic (= a lunch to eat outdoors).
We went to a park (but not the same park every time).
(We ate.)
We played for hours and hours.
(That's spending at least most of the day at the park.)


----------



## pijopajolero

chileno said:


> No, and there shouldn't be any particular day.


    I suppose, in either language, it boils down to a matter of style. Some people can tell a story better than others.


----------



## chileno

pijopajolero said:


> I suppose in either language it boils down to a matter of style. Some people can tell a story better than others.



Right.


----------



## NewdestinyX

pijopajolero said:


> After what lunch?
> 
> The change of tense is too abrupt. If that was a habitual action, you'd say: we'd play for hours, or we used to play for hours.


I disagree. That's a perfect English sentence and the context is crystal clear with the change to simple past. Simple past has both durative and moment qualities in English according to the English grammars I have. 

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Forero said:


> I read it as consecutive events, the whole sequence being repeated on multiple occasions:
> 
> 
> Mother made us a picnic (= a lunch to eat outdoors).
> We went to a park (but not the same park every time).
> (We ate.)
> We played for hours and hours.
> (That's spending at least most of the day at the park.)


With the 'would' for durative past it's not possible to see it as 'a particular day' full of events. But rather several days in my past that would flow a certain way. The 'would' for durative past in not 'event driven' at all. Maybe I'm misreading what you're saying. 

Grant


----------



## Txiri

Forero said:


> Hola, LaMachy.
> 
> Cada forma tiene su propio matiz, que dependerá del contexto:
> 
> _used to grow_ = "solía crecer" / "crecía" / "creció" / ...
> _would grow _= "crecería" / "crecía" / _*"quiso crecer"*_ / ...
> _was growing_ = "estaba creciendo" / "estuvo creciendo" / "crecía" / ...
> _grew_ = "creció" / "crecía" / ...


 

This thread seems to have taken fire overnight 

"Querer" is a difficult verb,_ resbaladizo,_ but I wonder if you would mind, Forero, providing an example or two where "quiso crecer" in Spanish would be rendered in English as "would grow."  I ... just find it hard to believe.  But you know language!  Never impossible ...


----------



## NewdestinyX

Txiri said:


> This thread seems to have taken fire overnight
> 
> "Querer" is a difficult verb,_ resbaladizo,_ but I wonder if you would mind, Forero, providing an example or two where "quiso crecer" in Spanish would be rendered in English as "would grow."  I ... just find it hard to believe.  But you know language!  Never impossible ...


Querer in the preterite takes on a different meaning than merely 'wanted to'. For 98% of the times English would want to say 'wanted to' -- the translation to Spanish is 'quería' - since 'wanting, in the past, is by logic an ongoing action. So how do you render a 'moment in time' of 'wanting in the past?' The nature of the Spanish preterite is more than just 'a moment in time' that the grammar books teach. Preterite emphasizes the 'beginning or ending or both' of an act in the past..

So the beginning of 'wanting' in the past is wanted to "and *made the attempt* or wanted to and *did*". 
= 'sought to' 'tried to' for emphasizing the beginning of the act and even 'decided to' to emphasize the end-in English - decided to = 'he would'. 

It's not a durative past.. But it is one translation to Spanish of English's 'would'.. One of the uses of would in English means -- 'thought about and decided to do it.

"I asked Mr. Evans if he could help us on Saturday and he said he would help."

That's not conditional nor past durative.

Le pide a Sr. Evans si podría ayudarnos este sábado y dijo que quiso hacerlo.

Chao,
Grant


----------



## Txiri

Thanks, Grant, but I'm not a student of the preterite, and I'd really like to see some examples from Forero.  If you go back and read the thread, he suggested it can translate "would."


----------



## Peterrobertini7

la_machy said:


> Txiri, entonces si quisiera decir " ...en el verano todo *crecía *a su propio ritmo...",
> puedo usar:
> 
> "...everything *used to grow* at its..."
> "...everything *would grow* at its..."
> "...everything *growing* at its..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saludos



The nearest translation of the Spanish imperfect past is the past progressive in English: 
Everything was growing at its own rate.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Txiri said:


> Thanks, Grant, but I'm not a student of the preterite, and I'd really like to see some examples from Forero.  If you go back and read the thread, he suggested it can translate "would."


I read the thread completely.. And I just gave you the example you seek. Read my post again.

El dijo que lo quiso crecer para mí. (If 'crecer' can mean 'grow a plant')
He said he would grow it for me. (the plant I asked him about) would = wanted to and will =has decided to


----------



## Peterrobertini7

la_machy said:


> Txiri, entonces si quisiera decir " ...en el verano todo *crecía *a su propio ritmo...",
> puedo usar:
> 
> "...everything *used to grow* at its..."
> "...everything *would grow* at its..."
> "...everything *growing* at its..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saludos



would+ bare infinitive equivale a SOLÍA, es algo que se hacía en el pasado pero no se repite en el presente
Used to= Would+infinitive solía ( pasado habitual)
When I was a child my father would read/used to read me a story at night before bed. con would hay una repetición del hecho y used to una situación que existió en el pasado : I used to live in California.
estos hechos y situaciones repetidas ya no existen en el presente.

tu frase En el verano todo crecía a su propio ritmo ( it is a longer background action) in Spanish Imperfect past crecía.
La acción de crecer es progresiva no repetitiva.
si dices En todos los veranos las flores crecían (or  solían crecer) se puede usar would+ infinitive pues se repetía el fenómeno de crecer.

el contexto es muy importante para definir el uso.
quiso hacerlo means he wanted to do it  or not
Construyó una casa extraña pero el dueño quiso hacerlo así (sí lo hizo).
Construyó una casa linda y quiso construir una piscina y no le alcanzó el dinero. ( no lo hizo)

todo es en el pasado pero no se repite en el presente con solía.


----------



## pijopajolero

NewdestinyX said:


> I disagree. That's a perfect English sentence and the context is crystal clear with the change to simple past. Simple past has both durative and [punctual] qualities in English according to the English grammars I have.
> 
> Grant


Frankly, I didn't realize the text was written by a native English speaker. Had I known that, I would have interpreted it differently. Of course, we have a great deal of latitude in telling a story (anything short of gross spelling and grammatical errors.) However, people may have their own ideas of what is good, let alone perfect, writing. I wish I had the same confidence as you to label what I write as perfect English.


----------



## NewdestinyX

pijopajolero said:


> Frankly, I didn't realize the text was written by a native English speaker. Had I known that, I would have interpreted it differently. Of course, we have a great deal of latitude in telling a story (anything short of gross spelling and grammatical errors.) However, people may have their own ideas of what is good, let alone perfect, writing. I wish I had the same confidence as you to label what I write as perfect English.


I think we're on the same page, Pijopa. You gain confidence when you read as much as I have to in my work and edit for publishing as I have with my courses. Once you've had editors go over and over and over your work.. You learn what good 'style' is and certainly what is 'correct'.

Grant


----------



## pijopajolero

NewdestinyX said:


> I think we're on the same page, Pijopa. You gain confidence when you read as much as I have to in my work and edit for publishing as I have with my courses. Once you've had editors go over and over and over your work.. You learn what good 'style' is and certainly what is 'correct'.
> 
> Grant




I am not so sure.


----------



## Txiri

NewdestinyX said:


> I read the thread completely.. And I just gave you the example you seek. Read my post again.
> 
> El dijo que lo quiso crecer para mí. (If 'crecer' can mean 'grow a plant')
> He said he would grow it for me. (the plant I asked him about) would = wanted to and will =has decided to


 
I must beg to disagree.

El dijo que lo quiso crecer para mí, in my opinion, should be rendered as 

He said that he tried to grow it for me (using your example and not altering your original).

So as not to muddy the waters too too badly, here's what I really think 

He said that he would grow it for me

should be:

El dijo que lo cultivari'a para mi'.

He said that he wanted to grow it for me, 'el dijo que quer'ia cultivarlo para mi'.  

I'd be curious to know what others think.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Txiri said:


> I must beg to disagree.
> 
> El dijo que lo quiso crecer para mí, in my opinion, should be rendered as
> 
> He said that he tried to grow it for me (using your example and not altering your original).
> 
> So as not to muddy the waters too too badly, here's what I really think
> 
> He said that he would grow it for me
> 
> should be:
> 
> El dijo que lo cultivari'a para mi'.


Ah yes.. conceded on the first point. I was confusing affirmative 'quiso' with negative 'quiso'.

Yes you're correct about the translation of my 'quiso crecer/plantar/cultivarlo sentence... And your sentence with 'cultivaría' in Spanish works since it's "reported speech" which uses the 'future from past'. Butin all other setting where the conditional is used it's implying an 'if' clause or another subordinating clause like with 'unless'. He would cultivate it for me. (if I were to...../unless I..). To use the conditional in Spanish you need a real or implied condition. And it can only stand alone as a future from past.

So "El dijo que lo cultivari'a para mi'" is perfect as reported speech. No condition implied.

But when English's 'would' means 'will do it after considering it - then 'cultivaría' isn't the translation. You use 'cultivará'. In this case 'would = will' -- which is why this gets so complicated. But I stand corrected on the 'quiso crecer' example.

And it also follows then, after I've considered it further, that I too, along with you, don't believe the post is accurate that stated 'quiso + infinitivo' can be 'would'. I was mixing up 'no quiso' which can be 'decided not to'. Quiso = tried to/sought to/wanted to - depending on context.

In summation:
When would = will/decided to = "..ará" (future tense) in Spanish
When would = a condition with actual or implied ''if' clause or future from past then = "..aría" (conditional tense)


----------



## Txiri

He says that he will .... , he said that he would ....

But, as I said, I would still like to see at least an example or two from Forero. "Never say never", it may very well exist.

And now, "I would still like to see at least an example or two," in Spanish, should be (or a variant of) 

"Aun me agradari'a ver al menos un par de ejemplos," and there is no requirement for a corollary phrase to complete.

The conditional can and does stand alone in Spanish.  Just like in English.


----------



## obz

Txiri said:


> The conditional can and does stand alone in Spanish.  Just like in English.



Eso sería la verdad.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Txiri said:


> The conditional can and does stand alone in Spanish.  Just like in English.


Who has said otherwise? But unless it's a "future from past" as in "reported speech" it at least implies a 'protasis' or subordinating clause (like with 'unless') if one is not stated.  (e.g. He would fix it tomorrow. (if.../unless...)- can't stand alone -- a protasis or subordinating clause is implied. Lo arreglaría mañana. (si... a menos que..)



			
				obz said:
			
		

> Eso sería la verdad.


A very strange sentence in English and Spanish.. Something that wouldn't commonly be said in either language unless an 'if clause' is implied and the context is understood between both speakers.


----------



## Forero

I was thinking of something like:

_El verano pasado nada me quiso crecer._ = "Last summer nothing would grow for me." 

(I defer to natives about whether the Spanish version makes sense.)

My point, with all the "..."s, was that _would_ and the other ways to express the "imperfect" idea all have other meanings and require context to make the "imperfect" idea clear.

I will add that the Spanish imperfect may also depend on context to indicate which "imperfect" idea is intended.

Sorry for not being available for a while.


----------



## chileno

Forero said:


> I was thinking of something like:
> 
> _El verano pasado nada me quiso crecer._ = "Last summer nothing would grow for me."
> 
> (I defer to natives about whether the Spanish version makes sense.)
> 
> My point, with all the "..."s, was that _would_ and the other ways to express the "imperfect" idea all have other meanings and require context to make the "imperfect" idea clear.
> 
> I will add that the Spanish imperfect may also depend on context to indicate which "imperfect" idea is intended.
> 
> Sorry for not being available for a while.




Interesting.

Is this the same in English? 

"Last summer nothing wanted to grow for me"


----------



## NewdestinyX

chileno said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Is this the same in English?
> 
> "Last summer nothing wanted to grow for me"


Actually yes. It's a pretty common 'idiomatic' way to express it. But we're getting away from 'translation' now and moving over into 'interpretation'. As a student of Spanish I would steer clear of the idea that 'would +inf (pasado) = quiso + inf. The other reason why it doesn't quite fit is that 'would + inf' in the past expresses something 'habitual'. And 'quiso' doesn't carry any habitual qualities. So actually the equivalent of 'nothing wanted to grow for me' would be 'quería' -not 'quiso'.


----------



## Forero

To me, "nothing would grow" is more final and less personifying than "nothing wanted to grow." In this case, I think "wanted to" is more like "quería", "would" more like "quiso".


----------



## NewdestinyX

Forero said:


> To me, "nothing would grow" is more final and less personifying than "nothing wanted to grow." In this case, I think "wanted to" is more like "quería", "would" more like "quiso".


Here's the problem, Forero. Though I agree it is perfectly germane to look at and amplify as much as possible the use of 'would' for 'past durative' and 'background info' -- making it very akin to Spanish's imperfect tense.. I think you take it one step too far when you try to transfer it to the verb querer. Even with 'quere's' special uses in the preterite -- we don't find 'would' (past durative) at all fitting, Expecially 'not' with 'quiso' -- though it can refer to a past moment of 'wanting' is more like 'tried to' or 'sought to' which I think we would agree is not 'would' at all in any context.

Quiso crecer = tried to grow/sought to grow -- but not 'would grow'. Remember -- 'would' is only in the past as a 'durative' quality.. not a fixed moment. Now interestingly enough. "Wouldn't" can transmit a 'moment in time' and 'duratively' in English. But that's another whole thread... methinks.. 

Grant


----------



## SevenDays

NewdestinyX said:


> Ah yes.. conceded on the first point. I was confusing affirmative 'quiso' with negative 'quiso'.
> 
> Yes you're correct about the translation of my 'quiso crecer/plantar/cultivarlo sentence... And your sentence with 'cultivaría' in Spanish works since it's "reported speech" which uses the 'future from past'. Butin all other setting where the conditional is used it's implying an 'if' clause or another subordinating clause like with 'unless'. He would cultivate it for me. (if I were to...../unless I..). To use the conditional in Spanish you need a real or implied condition. And it can only stand alone as a future from past.
> 
> So "El dijo que lo cultivari'a para mi'" is perfect as reported speech. No condition implied.
> 
> But when English's 'would' means 'will do it after considering it - then 'cultivaría' isn't the translation. You use 'cultivará'. In this case 'would = will' -- which is why this gets so complicated. But I stand corrected on the 'quiso crecer' example.
> 
> And it also follows then, after I've considered it further, that I too, along with you, don't believe the post is accurate that stated 'quiso + infinitivo' can be 'would'. I was mixing up 'no quiso' which can be 'decided not to'. Quiso = tried to/sought to/wanted to - depending on context.
> 
> In summation:
> When would = will/decided to = "..ará" (future tense) in Spanish
> When would = a condition with actual or implied ''if' clause or future from past then = "..aría" (conditional tense)




Hello

I think it needs to be clarified that there are uses of the Spanish conditional that don’t imply an “if” or “unless,” “reported speech,” or “future from the past.”

Me _gustaría_ ir al cine contigo.
¿_Podría_ decirme la hora?
¿La última vez que la viste, que edad tenía?  No estoy seguro, me imagino que _tendría/habría tenid_o unos 20 años.

Such uses of –_ría_ are quite common.

Are there cases when “would’ means “will”?  
I’ve always thought that “would” refers to “willingness” or to something that falls short of and is not quite equal to "will."

_He said he would grow it for me_.
I think that means he is _willing _to grow it for me but may very well _change his mind_ later on.  I don’t see how it could mean that he _will_ grow it for me or that he _decided_ to grow it for me.  If such certainty is meant, then “will” should be used, and not “would.”  But I’ll let the natives confirm/clarify _would vs. will_ in this context and correct me if I’m wrong.

Cheers


----------



## NewdestinyX

SevenDays said:


> Hello
> 
> I think it needs to be clarified that there are uses of the Spanish conditional that don’t imply an “if” or “unless,” “reported speech,” or “future from the past.”
> 
> Me _gustaría_ ir al cine contigo. *(..si me permitieras/a menos que no quieras)*
> ¿_Podría_ decirme la hora? *(..si la tienes/tuvieras/a menos que no la tengas)
> * ¿La última vez que la viste, que edad tenía?  No estoy seguro, me imagino que _tendría/habría tenid_o unos 20 años. This is the 'conditional of conjecture' and you're right about this one - no implied protasis or subordinating clause.
> 
> Such uses of –_ría_ are quite common.


You point out correctly the 'conditional tense' for conjecture which has no other clause implied. But the other two have implied but ellipsed if clauses or unless clauses.. A true conditional always has one except the categories I mentioned.



> Are there cases when “would’ means “will”?
> I’ve always thought that “would” refers to “willingness” or to something that falls short of and is not quite equal to "will."
> 
> _He said he would grow it for me_.
> I think that means he is _willing _to grow it for me but may very well _change his mind_ later on.  I don’t see how it could mean that he _will_ grow it for me or that he _decided_ to grow it for me.  If such certainty is meant, then “will” should be used, and not “would.”  But I’ll let the natives confirm/clarify _would vs. will_ in this context and correct me if I’m wrong.
> 
> Cheers


Yes, willingness is implied with 'would' in this way.. but a 'willingness' that turns into action. This is a commonly misunderstood use of 'would' that non-natives aren't taught in their English grammar books. It also may be American English only. But it is very common for 'would = will' = has decided to.  I think it's kind of ironic and interesting that this use of 'would' (willingness and decision to do) 'does indeed' have an implied contingent like: ..unless something else comes up/..if nothing else comes up..

He said he would grow it for me (unless... if....)

But the more I look at this -- it's occurring to me that this 'would' only seems to be used in reported speech where conditional can stand alone and it's translation to Spanish would use 'conditional' anyway. So it could be complicating the matter to think of it as a 'unique' use of 'would'.

Thanks for helping me think very succinctly about all this.. 

Grant


----------



## Peterrobertini7

Forero said:


> To me, "nothing would grow" is more final and less personifying than "nothing wanted to grow." In this case, I think "wanted to" is more like "quería", "would" more like "quiso".



nothing would grow ( *nada crecía*)
Probably the differences are from the meaning of 'want to' and will 'for wishes'
I won't tell anybody 
I don't want to tell anybody
will is to do with *actions *and *want to* do with thoughts.


----------



## pijopajolero

NewdestinyX said:


> ¿_Podría_ decirme la hora? *(..si la tienes/tuvieras/a menos que no la tengas)*



Some interesting reasoning there. Perhaps present tense is conditional too:

¿_Puedes_ decirme la hora? *(..si la tienes//a menos que no la tengas)

*Why stop with present? All tenses are conditional!


----------



## Forero

To me "nothing would grow" means something like "everything refused to grow, hence nothing grew". That is, an opportunity was missed, an opportunity with a beginning and an end. That is not what I call durative.

As with most English past tense forms, "nothing would grow" can also be used for multiple occurrences of the same thing: that  things refused every opportunity to grow, hence everything kept not growing. But still each occurrence had a beginning when the opportunity began and an end when it was missed.

Perhaps _quiso_ is the wrong verb, but for what "nothing would grow" means to me I am looking for a preterite form.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Forero said:


> To me "nothing would grow" means something like "everything refused to grow, hence nothing grew". That is, an opportunity was missed, an opportunity with a beginning and an end. That is not what I call durative.
> 
> As with most English past tense forms, "nothing would grow" can also be used for multiple occurrences of the same thing: that  things refused every opportunity to grow, hence everything kept not growing. But still each occurrence had a beginning when the opportunity began and an end when it was missed.
> 
> Perhaps _quiso_ is the wrong verb, but for what "nothing would grow" means to me I am looking for a preterite form.


Interesting angle. For the 'refused to' aspect of querer's preterite you'd need "*no* quiso". 

So...: Nothing would.. = Everything wouldn't = Everything refused to.. = Everything didn't want to and didn't.... (now we're sounding preterite.. as I mentioned in another post.. "wouldn't" does have preterite aspects)

Nothing would grow = Nada quiso crecer.... ¿? Okay.... you have me reconsidering 'quiso' again - but in the negative...  

Native speakers.. Does that sound like a natural use of 'palabra negativa + quiso'?

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

pijopajolero said:


> Some interesting reasoning there. Perhaps present tense is conditional too:
> 
> ¿_Puedes_ decirme la hora? *(..si la tienes//a menos que no la tengas)
> 
> *Why stop with present? All tenses are conditional!


 - a most interesting conundrum....


----------



## SevenDays

NewdestinyX said:


> You point out correctly the 'conditional tense' for conjecture which has no other clause implied. But the other two have implied but ellipsed if clauses or unless clauses.. A true conditional always has one except the categories I mentioned.
> 
> Yes, willingness is implied with 'would' in this way.. but a 'willingness' that turns into action. This is a commonly misunderstood use of 'would' that non-natives aren't taught in their English grammar books. It also may be American English only. But it is very common for 'would = will' = has decided to.  I think it's kind of ironic and interesting that this use of 'would' (willingness and decision to do) 'does indeed' have an implied contingent like: ..unless something else comes up/..if nothing else comes up..
> 
> He said he would grow it for me (unless... if....)
> 
> But the more I look at this -- it's occurring to me that this 'would' only seems to be used in reported speech where conditional can stand alone and it's translation to Spanish would use 'conditional' anyway. So it could be complicating the matter to think of it as a 'unique' use of 'would'.
> 
> Thanks for helping me think very succinctly about all this..
> 
> Grant



Hello

You change the structure of what I write when you introduce an element (“si,” post #42) that is neither stated nor implied in my examples.  Moreover, that extra element indeed supports your sentences, but it doesn’t negate what I said.   

1. _Me gustaría ir al cine contigo._
This is a simple sentence that speaks to the_ possibility_ (or wish) of going to the movies.  There is no conditionality involved—no cause and effect, prediction or speculation.   

If you add “si,” then you are introducing a conditional element— me gustaría ir al cine contigo _si me lo permitieras_—just keep in mind you are no longer referring to my original sentence.

I suppose it’s the same in English.
He said he would grow it for me.
Considering that_ he has made up his mind_ to do so then this is not a conditional sentence.
He said he would grow it for me_ if I paid him_.
This is now a conditional sentence, and it is different than the former.

(I see your point about would = willingness that turns into action/will.  I should’ve considered a broader context where that point is clearly seen.
He grew a plant for me.  He said _he would do it._)

2. _¿Podría decirme la hora?_
_Podría_ is simply used to ask, politely, for the time.  You may add a “si” phrase and introduce conditionality—_Si fuera tan amable,_ ¿podría decirme la hora?—but, again, structurally, this is now a different sentence.

Cheers


----------



## NewdestinyX

SevenDays said:


> You change the structure of what I write when you introduce an element (“si”) that is neither stated nor implied in my examples.  Moreover, that extra element indeed supports your sentences, but it doesn’t negate what I said.
> 
> 1. _Me gustaría ir al cine contigo._
> This is a simple sentence that speaks to the_ possibility_ (or wish) of going to the movies.  There is no conditionality involved—no cause and effect, prediction or speculation.
> 
> If you add “si,” then you are introducing a conditional element— me gustaría ir al cine contigo _si me lo permitieras_ (post #42)—just keep in mind you are no longer referring to my original sentence.
> 
> I suppose it’s the same in English.
> He said he would grow it for me.
> Considering that_ he has made up his mind_ to do so then this is not a conditional sentence.
> He said he would grow it for me_ if I paid him_.
> This is now a conditional sentence, and it is different than the former.
> ------
> 2. _¿Podría decirme la hora?_
> _Podría_ is simply used to ask, politely, for the time.  You may add a “si” phrase and introduce conditionality—_Si fuera tan amable,_ ¿podría decirme la hora?—but, again, structurally, this is now a different sentence.


Thanks for your observations, Sever Days. I think we agree more than we disagree.  The point I'm trying to drive home is the the 'conditional tense' is used, primarily for real or implied conditions. It seems sort of an obvious statement for me to make. And I do see 'podría' and 'me gustaría' as possibly exception to my statement. But I'm not sure I agree that adding the 'if' clause of an implied condition changes the meaning of the 'then' clause. But we're probably getting too esoteric about this now.

Good discussion.


----------



## Txiri

Forero said:


> I was thinking of something like:
> 
> _El verano pasado nada me quiso crecer._ = "Last summer nothing would grow for me."
> 
> (I defer to natives about whether the Spanish version makes sense.)
> 
> My point, with all the "..."s, was that _would_ and the other ways to express the "imperfect" idea all have other meanings and require context to make the "imperfect" idea clear.
> 
> I will add that the Spanish imperfect may also depend on context to indicate which "imperfect" idea is intended.
> 
> Sorry for not being available for a while.


 
Thanks for coming back and offering an example.  My feeling is that your example is limited and not really representative of rendering "would", and "querer" in the preterite tense.  Saludos.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Txiri said:


> Thanks for coming back and offering an example.  My feeling is that your example is limited and not really representative of rendering "would", and "querer" in the preterite tense.  Saludos.


Txiri, do you mean 'limited' to this context he used? And that you do accept it in 'this' context -- but wouldn't then want to apply it more broadly to 'would' and 'no quiso'? Or is it that you don't like it on this example either. I wasn't sure from your post.

Thanks,
Grant


----------



## Peterrobertini7

Forero said:


> I was thinking of something like:
> 
> _El verano pasado nada me quiso crecer._ = "Last summer nothing would grow for me."
> 
> (I defer to natives about whether the Spanish version makes sense.)
> 
> My point, with all the "..."s, was that _would_ and the other ways to express the "imperfect" idea all have other meanings and require context to make the "imperfect" idea clear.
> 
> I will add that the Spanish imperfect may also depend on context to indicate which "imperfect" idea is intended.
> 
> Sorry for not being available for a while.



*El verano pasado nada me crecía en el jardín.*
El verano pasado nada de lo que sembré me creció
This second sentence implied that he planted something and probably he didn't do it properly. The first one the reason is outside the agent or person.
querer is a verb more related with human groups.


----------



## Forero

¿Qué tal esto:

_Nadie me quiso ayudar._
(Nobody would help me.)

?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Forero,
I can't help but split hairs here -- in the English before we even go over to Spanish.. To me-- ''nothing wanted to" and "nothing would" are different.. Aren't they? I think that's essential to nail down before the translation. I do agree that the negative preterite of 'querer' mainly expresses 'didn't want to and didn't' = 'refused to' but that's a step further in meaning than 'would + inf'.. 'Nothing would + inf' is a general overview statement very akin to the way the Spanish imperfect 'tells the story'. But English's 'would', in the past, is used for 'habitual or ongoing'. So two things bother me about the 'Nothing would grow' sentence.

1)In English you're trying to use 'would' to express a simple past -- something that didn't happen 'that year' at a point in time. Why do I think that? Well I think you said that was your goal with this sentence early on. To use 'would' in the past -- it has to be for habitual or recurring over a period of time in the past. Also I think this because you want to translate it to a preterite in Spanish.

Well I guess i summed up my '2' problems with it --  in that one paragraph..

Now- having said that -- the sentence sounds like perfectly natural English to me when referring to something in the past that is isolated to the past..and with that 'negating word' - 'nothing' before the 'would'. It gets less natural if you try to remove the 'nothing' and add a generic subject.

So there you have it. If you reworded the sentence to 'wouldn't' then it's potential to be 'no quiso' in Spanish gets clearer to me.

The flowers wouldn't grow that year. = Los flores no quisieron crecer... It seems if we want to confine 'would + inf' in the past to portraying only past habitual then we'd have to reword it to 'wouldn't' to allow for a preterite context... But that seems like Waaaaay too much work... 

So can 'negating word + would + inf' (Nothing + would....) refer to something 'preterite' in the past? And can simply 'subject + would + inf' transmit a preterite notion? (The flowers that year would bloom gloriously).

Enquiring minds want to know.. 

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

I feel at a stand still here in this thread until we get more info about the possible uses of 'would' in the past.

So I started a thread in the English Only forum asking about this 'simple past' aspect of 'nothing would' that Forero's put forth - that we've been considering as translatable to 'nada quiso'. 

Here's the link to the new thread:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=7190084#post7190084


----------



## Peterrobertini7

NewdestinyX said:


> Forero,
> 
> The flowers wouldn't grow that year. = Los flores no quisieron crecer... It seems if we want to confine 'would + inf' in the past to portraying only past habitual then we'd have to reword it to 'wouldn't' to allow for a preterite context... But that seems like Waaaaay too much work...
> 
> So can 'negating word + would + inf' (Nothing + would....) refer to something 'preterite' in the past? And can simply 'subject + would + inf' transmit a preterite notion? (The flowers that year would bloom gloriously).
> 
> Enquiring minds want to know..
> 
> Grant



Grant,  no quisieron crecer is not proper for *flowers*, is better las flores no *crecieron*. Flowers do not have the meaning of 'querer' as a volitive action.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Peterrobertini7 said:


> Grant,  no quisieron crecer is not proper for *flowers*, is better las flores no *crecieron*. Flowers do not have the meaning of 'querer' as a volitive action.


I understand the literal underpinnings of your point Peterro... but we personify nouns all the time in English and Spanish. It would be fine to say in English:

"It just seemed that the flowers refused to/didn't want to grow for me this year."

That's a perfectly logical and normal thing to say in English. It isn't even overly poetic. And I think the verb 'querer' in Spanish would work fine too.

An example from Google:
*Mi Caja De Zapatos...: Nueva Caja ..*
...*las hierbas* que _no quisieron crecer_... que tuvieron temor a poder ver la luz... o quizás necesitaban crecer en otro lugar.. así fue. *...*
elmejo.blogspot.com/2007/05/nueva-caja.


----------



## chileno

Las flores no quisieron crecer este verano. Está muy bien dicho en español y se entiende muy bien. A pesar de que las flores no piensan ni razonan.

The flowers did not want to grow this summer. This phrase I think, it is understood (and used?) in English, even though flowers do not think nor reason.

_"In those days my mother would make us a picnic and we would go to one of the local parks. After lunch we played for hours and hours._"

En aquellos/esos días mi madre nos haría un (a canasta de) picnic e iríamos a unos de los parques locales/cercanos. Después del almuerzo jugábamos por horas.

Todo esto se entiende muy bien en español como que sucedió en el pasado y en más de una ocasión.

Creo que se estan ahogando en un vaso de agua.

Entiendo también que hay "mil" maneras de pedir una hamburguesa.

Quiero un hamburguesa

Quisiera una hamburguesa

Me gustaría una hamburguesa

etc etc...

Para mi el "would" es conditional y se usa también para el pasado, tanto en inglés como en español.

Quién sabe, estoy equivocado.

Gracias por leer.


----------



## NewdestinyX

chileno said:


> Las flores no quisieron crecer este verano. Está muy bien dicho en español y se entiende muy bien. A pesar de que las flores no piensan ni razonan.
> 
> The flowers did not want to grow this summer. This phrase I think, it is understood (and used?) in English, even though flowers do not think nor reason.


Yes. It's okay in English. But it's more natural to say 'The flowers 'wouldn't' grow. That's what we're trying to figure out in this thread.



> _"In those days my mother would make us a picnic and we would go to one of the local parks. After lunch we played for hours and hours._"
> 
> En aquellos/esos días mi madre nos haría un (a canasta de) picnic e iríamos a unos de los parques locales/cercanos. Después del almuerzo jugábamos por horas.


The 2 - 'would's' in the English sentence translate to 'pretérito imperfecto' in the Spanish.. not conditional.. "hacía" and "íbamos" instead of "haría" and "iríamos". The English sentence is not conditional or future from past - so conditional in the Spanish shouldn't work in my estimation.

Chao,
Grant


----------



## chileno

> Originally Posted by *chileno*
> 
> 
> Las flores no quisieron crecer este verano. Está muy bien dicho en español y se entiende muy bien. A pesar de que las flores no piensan ni razonan.
> 
> The flowers did not want to grow this summer. This phrase I think, it is understood (and used?) in English, even though flowers do not think nor reason





NewdestinyX said:


> Yes. It's okay in English. But it's more natural to say 'The flowers 'wouldn't' grow. That's what we're trying to figure out in this thread.



Las flores no crecerían ese verano...
The flowers would not grow that summer...

For me both are in past tense.




NewdestinyX said:


> The 2 - 'would's' in the English sentence translate to 'pretérito imperfecto' in the Spanish.. not conditional.. "hacía" and "íbamos" instead of "haría" and "iríamos". The English sentence is not conditional or future from past - so conditional in the Spanish shouldn't work in my estimation.



That's the problem I am trying to explain., "would" not necessarily translates to pretérito imperfecto in Spanish, just leave it in its potential form and it is understood as past tense.


----------



## Peterrobertini7

Forero said:


> ¿Qué tal esto:
> 
> _Nadie me quiso ayudar._
> (Nobody would help me.)
> 
> ?



Nobody wanted to help me
Nadie me quiso ayudar
Nobody would help me
Nadie me ayudará
Nadie me ayuda (mañana)


----------



## NewdestinyX

Peterrobertini7 said:


> Nobody would help me
> Nadie me ayudará
> Nadie me ayuda (mañana)


I'm sorry to disagree, Peterrobertini. Without more context the only way to translate 'Nobody would help me' is with 'conditional' or something showing unwillingness in the past (Nadie quiso..; nadie estuvo dispuesto a..... etc.)

"Would", in one of its roles is the 'past' of 'will'. So future is unlikely without another word in the context pushing it into the future. There are times when 'would'='will' when it comes to 'willingness to do something'. But the sentence above, is without sufficient context to allow for a translation to 'future' in Spanish or present tense.

Grant


----------



## Peterrobertini7

NewdestinyX said:


> I'm sorry to disagree, Peterrobertini. Without more context the only way to translate 'Nobody would help me' is with 'conditional' or something showing unwillingness in the past (Nadie quiso..; nadie estuvo dispuesto a..... etc.)
> 
> "Would", in one of its roles is the 'past' of 'will'. So future is unlikely without another word in the context pushing it into the future. There are times when 'would'='will' when it comes to 'willingness to do something'. But the sentence above, is without sufficient context to allow for a translation to 'future' in Spanish or present tense.
> 
> Grant



Let me quote Michael Swan : ' the past modal forms  could, might, would and should usually have PRESENT or FUTURE reference; they are used as less direct  'distanced' forms of can, may, will and shall'
would you come this way, please ( present meaning) how would youi translate this sentence,in Spanish, Grant.
You would marry one daY fUTURE MEANING.  Un día te casarás/un día te casas ( present future meaning).
They set off at daybreak. They would  reach  the camp before nightfall.
they would reach is a future meaning: Ellos llegarán al campo antes del anochecer.
George Washington was the first President of a nation that would become the richest and most powerful on earth. G.W. fue el primer presidente de una nación  que llega/llegará a ser la más rica y la más poderosa del mundo.

El condicional es un futuro hipotético para Gaya.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Peterrobertini7 said:


> Let me quote Michael Swan : ' the past modal forms  could, might, would and should usually have PRESENT or FUTURE reference; they are used as less direct  'distanced' forms of can, may, will and shall'


You are quoting small phrases from Swan that are disjointed and not germane to 'would'. You'd have to quote a larger section for any context. 


> Would you come this way, please ( present meaning) how would you translate this sentence,in Spanish, Grant.


 This use of 'would' is for 'willingness'. ¿Estaría dispuesto (Ud.) a ir/venir....?


> You would marry one daY fUTURE MEANING.  Un día te casarás/un día te casas ( present future meaning).


 No illogical. Not said in English.


> They set off at daybreak. They would  reach  the camp before nightfall.
> they would reach is a future meaning: Ellos llegarán al campo antes del anochecer.


Since Swan in British, this is a British use of 'would' and still isn't a future utterance. It's a 'future from past'. They "set off" (past) -- they 'would' = future from past.


> George Washington was the first President of a nation that would become the richest and most powerful on earth.


 Another future from past. The conditional must be used in the Spanish. 





> G.W. fue el primer presidente de una nación  que llega/llegará a ser la más rica y la más poderosa del mundo.


This is not a translation of the English above. This sentence, in English is: G.W was the president of a nation that *is becoming/will become* the most....."
I see a lot of errors in your analysis, Peterrobertini. And I'm sorry to disagree but we're steering way off course for this thread.

Grant


----------



## chileno

NewdestinyX said:


> I'm sorry to disagree, Peterrobertini. Without more context the only way to translate 'Nobody would help me' is with 'conditional' or something showing unwillingness in the past (Nadie quiso..; nadie estuvo dispuesto a..... etc.)
> 
> "Would", in one of its roles is the 'past' of 'will'. So future is unlikely without another word in the context pushing it into the future. There are times when 'would'='will' when it comes to 'willingness to do something'. But the sentence above, is without sufficient context to allow for a translation to 'future' in Spanish or present tense.
> 
> Grant



The problem to me stems from the fact that English takes both tenses/modes/moods whatever, as far as past tense is concerned, as well as in conditional.

Yesterday, nobody wanted to help me = Ayer, nadie quería ayudarme or nadie quiso ayudarme.

Yesterday, nobody would help me. = Ayer, nadie me ayudaría or nadie me ayudó.


----------



## Forero

Comparisons of possible translations of "En el verano todo crecía a su propio ritmo":

_In the summer_(_time_) _everything grew at its own pace._
In this context, simple past is fine because "in the summertime" and "at its own pace" already convey the idea of the "imperfect". To me, this is the best general-purpose choice.

_In the summer_(_time_) _everything used to grow at its own pace.
_This version suggests that this no longer happens. Alternatively, it may be used for the idea of _solía crecer_.

_In the summer_(_time_) _everything was growing at its own pace._
This version suggests that an event interrupted or punctuated the process.

_In the summer_(_time_) _everything would grow at its own pace._
This version suggests a conditional, but it may express a tendency to grow or a habit of growing, if we accept a little personification.


----------



## poss

I agree with Grant, I am not a native speaker, but I completely understood the sentence. I mean if he is talking about having lunch at the park, it is obvious that they are going to play in the same park, unless they specify something different, to me it was really clear hence correct. 

Have a great day all of you.
Poss.


----------



## poss

I am sorry everybody I am new in the forums and I gave my answer without noticing that there were 4 pages, I did not notice. It won’t happen again.
  Have a great day.
  Poss.


----------



## NewdestinyX

chileno said:


> The problem to me stems from the fact that English takes both tenses/modes/moods whatever, as far as past tense is concerned, as well as in conditional.
> 
> Yesterday, nobody wanted to help me = Ayer, nadie quería ayudarme or nadie quiso ayudarme.
> 
> Yesterday, nobody would help me. = Ayer, nadie me ayudaría or nadie me ayudó.


Yes -- I agree to a point. But the heart of this problem stems from a distinction that isn't taught that well in grammars that I've read of 'would' being the 'past tense' of 'will'. And 'would' and 'will's role in referring to 'willingness (or refusal) to do something.

Tomorrow noone will (is willing to) help me.
Yesterday noone would (was willing to) help me.

Our sentence that is the topic of this thread is about the 'willingness' of the plants to grow (when we personify the plants).

I think we confuse matters when we try to think of this use of 'would' as either a conditional or past habitual use. It's really not. And we can't separate it from it's negating word: nothing or noone.

This use of 'negating word + would' is about 'a past lack of willingness' - and is appropriately translated by 'no quiso' in my final opinion. If the context involved true human unwillingness then it could also be captured in Spanish by 'no estuvo dispuesto a'.

The modals in English have to be considered from many angles before being translated. A simple direct translation to the Spanish conditional tense/mood is not really the best 'semantic' equivalent of the English idea of 'past unwillingness' (personified)

Very helpful discussion, all, and great question, LaMachy.

Chao,
Grant


----------



## Peterrobertini7

NewdestinyX said:


> Yes -- I agree to a point. But the heart of this problem stems from a distinction that isn't taught that well in grammars that I've read of 'would' being the 'past tense' of 'will'. And 'would' and 'will's role in referring to 'willingness (or refusal) to do something.
> 
> Tomorrow noone will (is willing to) help me.
> Yesterday noone would (was willing to) help me.
> 
> Our sentence that is the topic of this thread is about the 'willingness' of the plants to grow (when we personify the plants).
> 
> I think we confuse matters when we try to think of this use of 'would' as either a conditional or past habitual use. It's really not. And we can't separate it from it's negating word: nothing or noone.
> 
> This use of 'negating word + would' is about 'a past lack of willingness' - and is appropriately translated by 'no quiso' in my final opinion. If the context involved true human unwillingness then it could also be captured in Spanish by 'no estuvo dispuesto a'.
> 
> The modals in English have to be considered from many angles before being translated. A simple direct translation to the Spanish conditional tense/mood is not really the best 'semantic' equivalent of the English idea of 'past unwillingness' (personified)
> 
> Very helpful discussion, all, and great question, LaMachy.
> 
> Chao,
> Grant



OXFORD Practice grammar ( J. Eastwood)
" how about going to Cornwall next weekend ?---That would be nice (future)
I wouldn't enjoy another camping holiday  (future)


----------



## NewdestinyX

Peterrobertini7 said:


> OXFORD Practice grammar ( J. Eastwood)
> " how about going to Cornwall next weekend ?---That would be nice (future)
> I wouldn't enjoy another camping holiday  (future)


Those 2 sentences are a 'present' toward 'future'. "Would" can only be a true 'future' when it's used to express 'willingness'.


----------



## Peterrobertini7

NewdestinyX said:


> Those 2 sentences are a 'present' toward 'future'. "Would" can only be a true 'future' when it's used to express 'willingness'.



I agree, but NOT always 'would' is a* future from the past*. Also the present can refer itself toward the future
In spanish :

*podría*, *pudiera*, *podrá, poder ir a, ir a . It *is toward the future.


----------

