# should or would



## andaya

¿Cuál de las dos es correcta?


It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion would be successful


It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion should be successful


----------



## alexacohen

andaya said:


> ¿Cuál de las dos es correcta?
> 
> 
> It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion would be successful
> 
> 
> It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion should be successful


 
Should... but i'd wait for the English speaking colleagues


----------



## Outsider

'Should' sounds better, though it's not very colloquial.


----------



## cyberpedant

I'd go for "would," but a bit more context might change my mind.


----------



## mazbook

Hola andaya:





andaya said:


> ¿Cuál de las dos es correcta?
> 
> 
> It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion would be successful  This sentence is incorrect due to confusion of tenses.  Correct would be:
> It is was rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion would be successful.  OR
> It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion would will be successful.
> 
> 
> It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion should be successful.  While grammatically correct English, this is a very odd use of the word "should".  I can't recommend its use in this sentence because the sentence is *already *conditional, e.g., "It is rather improbable...", and "should" is also a conditional.  Normally, one would never use two conditionals in the same sentence.


Saludos desde Mazatlán


----------



## Ivy29

mazbook said:


> Hola andaya:Saludos desde Mazatlán


 

Hi MAzbook, Itis rather IMPROBABLE = an adverb of degree RATHER before IMPROBABLE ( adjective) in attributive position of a copular or linking verb to BE. ( present tense).
Should/would are conditional auxiliaries in conditional sentences. I don't think this sentence is a conditional one,  am I right ??

SHOULD = also is used as PROBABILITY with ought to either in the present or FUTURE.
<<It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion should be successful>>

According to my grammar books the usage of should for present or future probability is germane.

Thanks
Ivy29


----------



## mazbook

Hola Ivy:  No me lo gusta pero necesito descrepar con Usted. 


Ivy29 said:


> Hi MAzbook, Itis rather IMPROBABLE = an adverb of degree RATHER before IMPROBABLE ( adjective) in attributive position of a copular or linking verb to BE. ( present tense).
> Should/would are conditional auxiliaries in conditional sentences. I don't think this sentence is a conditional one,  am I right ??
> 
> SHOULD = also is used as PROBABILITY with ought to either in the present or FUTURE.
> <<It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion should be successful>>
> 
> According to my grammar books the usage of should for present or future probability is germane.
> 
> Thanks
> Ivy29


"Germane" it might be, but good English it's *NOT*.  My explanation of why it isn't may not be exactly correct, as I'm unfamiliar with the words that grammarians use.  "probable" may not be a conditional, as you correctly say, but here are three grammatically correct sentences that mean exactly the same thing, and they are ALL bad English, just as the original is.

"It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion *might *be successful."
"It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion *maybe will* be successful."
"It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion *could* be successful."

The only way to correctly say this is using *would/will*, with the correct tense of "to be", as I did in my two examples.





> It was rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion would be successful.  OR
> It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion will be successful.


Saludos desde Mazatlán


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

andaya said:


> ¿Cuál de las dos es correcta?
> 
> 
> It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion would be successful
> 
> 
> It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion should be successful




'Should' is nonsense here, at least in British English. The first one's OK, definitely so if you use 'unlikely' instead of 'improbable',  but the problem is less with the grammar than with the fact that this is an altogether awkward translation -- the English is 'English', but not really English, if you see what I mean


----------



## Ivy29

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> 'Should' is nonsense here, at least in British English. The first one's OK, definitely so if you use 'unlikely' instead of 'improbable', but the problem is less with the grammar than with the fact that this is an altogether awkward translation -- the English is 'English', but not really English, if you see what I mean


 

*Could you give a grammatical reason why WOULD according to MAZBOOK* native was wrong because of NO TIME CONCORDANCE, and why should being used as *PPROBABILITY* modal according to OXFORD GUIDE TO ENGLISH GRAMMAR page 121, numeral 96 is a nonsense???

This is an attribute clause of the linking verb to be.

Always there are reasons for a clause not too long neither to complicated to understand.

Thanks

Ivy29


----------



## andaya

En este artículo usan will
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/it-is-by-no-means-improbable-that-some-future/348541.html


----------



## Ivy29

andaya said:


> En este artículo usan will
> http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/it-is-by-no-means-improbable-that-some-future/348541.html


 
In that sentence, I surmise that BY NO MEANS = en absoluto= definitely not, is a 100% assertion so the indicative should be used ( WILL= FUTURE marker)
<<It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion should be successful, here a kind of reporting clause. Last night I was reading   
*Advanced grammar in USE', Martin Hewings, page 96, unit 48*, letter E and I found the following ; quoting << We can also use SHOULD or sometimes the subjunctive  in a that-clause  after *IT+BE+ADJECTIVE* such as essential, crucial, imperative, important, (in)appropiate, (un)necessary, vital>>
In* the sentence at issue: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE  ( reporting clause)( adjective) that ( REPORTED clause) : that the visual estimation of motion (SHOULD) be successful.*

Ivy29


----------



## andaya

yo pienso como tu ivy29, de acuerdo con mis gramáticas, pero lo que está claro es que los angloparlantes no están de acuerdo. Anque tampoco coinciden entre ellos.


----------



## natasha2000

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> 'Should' is nonsense here, at least in British English. The first one's OK, definitely so if you use 'unlikely' instead of 'improbable', but the problem is less with the grammar than with the fact that this is an altogether awkward translation -- the English is 'English', but not really English, if you see what I mean


 
I agree...

The whole sentence sounds... NOT-English, but rather some kind of forced translation from some other language, and I can even imagine which one - Spanish, since *should* and *would* would be standing for subjunctive.


It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion would be successful
It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion should be successful
*Es poco probable que la estimación visual del movimiento sea exitosa (tenga éxito).*

Personally, I would try to put this in another way, changing wording a little bit...

*The visual estimation of motion is (rather) unlikely to be successful.*

But if I had to choose between *would* and *should*, I would choose *WOULD, *even though I would prefer* WILL *. For me, should also has some kind of meaning like *ought to, need to,* i.e. some kind of recommendation.

I also think that Mazbook got it perfectly right. There is a wrong tense in the first part of the sentence, too.


----------



## natasha2000

andaya said:


> yo pienso como tu ivy29, de acuerdo con mis gramáticas, pero lo que está claro es que los angloparlantes no están de acuerdo. Anque tampoco coinciden entre ellos.


 
No entiendo qué es lo que quieres decir ....

Todos los nativos (y no nativos, excepto Ivy, claro), han dicho would, pero también han añadido algo que indique que les suena raro la frase.
Cyberpedant pide más contexto. Mazbook ha dado una explicación bien clara. Si en la primera frase es IS en la segunda debería estar WILL, y si en la primera es WAS en la segunda debería estar WOULD. Así está puesto en la frase del link que has proporcionado:
“It *is* by no means improbable that some future textbook, for the use of generations yet unborn, *will* contain a question something like this.."

Y al final, gwrthgymdeithasol ha dicho que le suena rarísimo la frase y que SHOULD no tiene ningún sentido. Todos han votado (si tienen que elegir entre should y would y nada más) por *would*. Así que, los nativos estan de acuerdo en una cosa: que SHOULD no va allí.


----------



## andaya

hola natasha:
quería decir que unos dicen que habría que usar would y otros will.
Si , tienes razón viene de una traducción
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=235086


----------



## Ivy29

andaya said:


> yo pienso como tu ivy29, de acuerdo con mis gramáticas, pero lo que está claro es que los angloparlantes no están de acuerdo. Anque tampoco coinciden entre ellos.


 
El libro de Marting Hewings es una obra muy conocida y es reconocido autor de la gramática ADVANCED GRAMMAR in USE. Es además Británico.

El capítulo de los modales es bien difícil aún para los nativos.

Ivy29


----------



## natasha2000

andaya said:


> hola natasha:
> quería decir que unos dicen que habría que usar would y otros will.
> Si , tienes razón viene de una traducción
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=235086


 
Hola, Andaya....

Pero, en este hilo, tampoco se ha dado la solución *should*. Todos los nativos han dicho *would* o *will*. De hecho, Mazbook hizo la misma observación que aquí. Y Sally ha explicado bien cuando se utilizaría *will* y cuando *would*. Además, Daniel el Travieso da otra opción de la traducción de la frase española, que es muy similar a la mía.

Ten en cuenta que en este caso, esta frase se puede traducir literalmente, es gramaticalmente correcta, pero NO suena bien en inglés. Incluso me atrevo decir que un nativo nunca lo diría así. En inglés, el subjuntivo español se puede traducir de varias maneras, con varios tiempos. Todo depende del contexto. No olvides que las relaciones entre dos idiomas no son y nunca pueden tener precisión matemática. A veces sí, pero muchas más veces, simplemente es imposible.

Si quieres una traducción de esta frase española, yo, personalmente NO recomendaría la versión que puso Pedro en el otro hilo o tú en éste. Yo optaría por la traducción que hice yo o bien Daniel en otro hilo. Suena más natural en inglés.

*Yo: The visual estimation of motion is (rather) unlikely to be successful.*
*Daniel: The visual estimation of motion is rather improbable to be successful.*

A ver que dicen los nativos...


----------



## Sallyb36

The visual estimation of motion is unlikely to be succesful.


----------



## Ivy29

natasha2000 said:


> No entiendo qué es lo que quieres decir ....
> 
> Todos los nativos (y no nativos, excepto Ivy, claro), han dicho would, pero también han añadido algo que indique que les suena raro la frase.
> Cyberpedant pide más contexto. Mazbook ha dado una explicación bien clara. Si en la primera frase es IS en la segunda debería estar WILL, y si en la primera es WAS en la segunda debería estar WOULD. Así está puesto en la frase del link que has proporcionado:
> “It *is* by no means improbable that some future textbook, for the use of generations yet unborn, *will* contain a question something like this.."
> 
> Y al final, gwrthgymdeithasol ha dicho que le suena rarísimo la frase y que SHOULD no tiene ningún sentido. Todos han votado (si tienen que elegir entre should y would y nada más) por *would*. Así que, los nativos estan de acuerdo en una cosa: que SHOULD no va allí.


 
<<Todos los nativos (y no nativos, excepto Ivy, claro), *Este claro se basa NO POR CAPRICHO sino en sólidos fundamentos en autores de gramática INGLESA como Marting Hewings, Oxford guide to English Grammar. *
*LA CONSTRUCTION IT +TO BE +ADJECTIVE es un uso de SHOULD or SUBJUNCTIVE, no es una CONDICIONAL que tiene una relación de TIEMPOS muy clara. Es una construcción de ESTILO INDIRECTO, que encaja en el sentido de la oración aún en español. *

*SHOULD y OUGHT TO son modales de PROBABILIDAD y se usan en el present y FUTURO ( OXFORD GUIDE TO ENGLISH GRAMMAR).*

*It is inappropiate that they should be given the award again.*
*It is important that she should understand what her decision means both examples from Marting Hewings page 96, unit 48, letter E.)*

*Ivy29*


----------



## Porteño

Without any doubt in my mind, *would* is the correct word, definitely NOT should. However, in the final analysis, SallyB36 gets my vote.


----------



## natasha2000

Ivy... Y dale con tus gramáticas... Creeme, no todo lo bueno está en los libros... 



Porteño said:


> Without any doubt in my mind, *would* is the correct word, definitely NOT should. However, in the final analysis, SallyB36 gets my vote.


 
What about me, Porteño? My sentence is exactly the same as Sally's... And I was the first who wrote it  .....


----------



## Texas Heat Wave

I agree with you, Porteño.


----------



## Ivy29

natasha2000 said:


> Ivy... Y dale con tus gramáticas... Creeme, no todo lo bueno está en los libros...
> 
> <<*It is inappropiate that they should be given the award again.
> It is important that she should understand what her decision means both examples from Marting Hewings page 96, unit 48, letter E.)*
> 
> Son esas oraciones INCORRECTAS ???
> 
> Ivy29


----------



## natasha2000

Ivy29 said:


> natasha2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ivy... Y dale con tus gramáticas... Creeme, no todo lo bueno está en los libros...
> 
> <<*It is inappropiate that they should be given the award again.*
> *It is important that she should understand what her decision means both examples from Marting Hewings page 96, unit 48, letter E.)*
> 
> Son esas oraciones INCORRECTAS ???
> 
> Ivy29
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Son correctísimas, Ivy. Si están en tu libro, deben ser correctas.
> 
> Claro está, aquí, debe estar should porque en las dos significa deber, y no ser, como en otros dos exemplos.
> Tradúcelos, porfi, y verás de que hablo.
> Aunque, tengo que admitir, suenan un poco rarillo...
> 
> Lo que no entiendo es por qué te tomas todo tan a pecho...
Click to expand...


----------



## Ivy29

natasha2000 said:


> Ivy29 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Son correctísimas, Ivy. Si están en tu libro, deben ser correctas.
> 
> Claro está, aquí, debe estar should porque en las dos significa deber, y no ser, como en otros dos exemplos.
> Tradúcelos, porfi, y verás de que hablo.
> Aunque, tengo que admitir, suenan un poco rarillo...
> 
> Lo que no entiendo es por qué te tomas todo tan a pecho...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo no tengo PECHO, LOL!!
> 
> Ivy29
Click to expand...


----------



## natasha2000

Ivy29 said:


> natasha2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo no tengo PECHO, LOL!!
> 
> Ivy29
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jajaja.. si que lo tienes, Ivy... Lo que no tienes son los pechos...
Click to expand...


----------



## andaya

ivy29 son correctísimas pero no por que signifiquen deber como dice natasha, no se traducen como deber si no como subjuntivo al español.
Natasha, las gramáticas sirven para aclarar dudas de este tipo.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Ivy29 said:


> *It is inappropiate that they should be given the award again.*
> *It is important that she should understand what her decision means both examples from Marting Hewings page 96, unit 48, letter E.)*
> 
> *Ivy29*



Hewings is right in these examples; 'should' is OK here -- because the writer/speaker's attitude/opinion is being expressed. But this isn't the case in the original example. This distinction doesn't exist in Spanish, hence, I presume, the difficulty.


----------



## Ivy29

natasha2000 said:


> Ivy29 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Son correctísimas, Ivy. Si están en tu libro, deben ser correctas.
> 
> Claro está, aquí, debe estar should porque en las dos significa deber, y no ser, como en otros dos exemplos.
> Tradúcelos, porfi, y verás de que hablo.
> Aunque, tengo que admitir, suenan un poco rarillo...
> 
> Lo que no entiendo es por qué te tomas todo tan a pecho...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <<<<*It is inappropiate that they should be given the award again.*
> *It is important that she should understand what her decision means both examples from Marting Hewings page 96, unit 48, letter E.)*
> 
> Es inconveniente/improcedente que a ellos se les diera el premio otra vez.
> ES importante que ella entendiera lo que su decisión significa.
> ¿¿¿Cómo es posible DEBERÍA para alGO INAPROPIADO o IMPROCEDENTE??? en la primera oración es pecialmente.
> 
> SHOULD aquí no es de deber moral ni de OBLIGACIÓN es el uso de probabilidad y el sustituto marcador de subjuntivo que en Inglés británico es SHOULD ( Oxford página 322, numeral 242 The  subjunctive)
> LOS USOS de SHOULD como MODAL :
> 1- Marcador de subjuntivo en UK.
> 2- Como condicional primeras personas de singular y plural que corresponden a I shall/should, we shal /should.
> 3- OBLIGACIÓN, deber, consejo, I should go to school every day; DEDUCCIÓN Henry should get here soon.
> 4- PAST of INDIRECT SPEECH
> I knew I should write to Jane, but it seemed too difficult.
> 5- PAST ( should+have+pp) para acciones o hechos que debieron suceder pero no ocurrieron, I shoud have phoned Jane this morning, but I forgot.
> Debiera haber llamado a Jane esta mañana pero se me olvidó.
> Debía haber llamado a Jane pero se me olvidó.
> Debería haber llamado a Jane pero se me olvidó.
> 6- Unwanted things tthat happened or negative PROBABILITIES
> You shouldn't have called him a fool.
> No debiste haberlo llamado tonto.
> 7- In conditional sentences TYPE 2 ( presente y FUTURO).
> 8- SItuaciones distintas a la que ocurrió ( situations that are different from what actually happened : I should/would have liked to study medicine, but it wasn't possible ( the person studied other career)
> 9- AS an advice  ( if I were you) I  should/would get that car serviced
> 
> Ivy29
Click to expand...


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Ivy29 said:


> SHOULD aquí no es de deber moral ni de OBLIGACIÓN es el uso de probabilidad y el sustituto marcador de subjuntivo que en Inglés británico es SHOULD ( Oxford página 322, numeral 242 The  subjunctive)
> LOS USOS de SHOULD como MODAL :
> 1- Marcador de subjuntivo en UK.
> 2- Como condicional primeras personas de singular y plural que corresponden a I shall/should, we shal /should.
> 3- OBLIGACIÓN, deber, consejo, I should go to school every day; DEDUCCIÓN Henry should get here soon.
> 4- PAST of INDIRECT SPEECH
> I knew I should write to Jane, but it seemed too difficult.
> 5- PAST ( should+have+pp) para acciones o hechos que debieron suceder pero no ocurrieron, I shoud have phoned Jane this morning, but I forgot.
> Debiera haber llamado a Jane esta mañana pero se me olvidó.
> Debía haber llamado a Jane pero se me olvidó.
> Debería haber llamado a Jane pero se me olvidó.
> 6- Unwanted things tthat happened or negative PROBABILITIES
> You shouldn't have called him a fool.
> No debiste haberlo llamado tonto.
> 7- In conditional sentences TYPE 2 ( presente y FUTURO).
> 8- SItuaciones distintas a la que ocurrió ( situations that are different from what actually happened : I should/would have liked to study medicine, but it wasn't possible ( the person studied other career)
> 9- AS an advice  ( if I were you) I  should/would get that car serviced
> 
> Ivy29



Así es, pero el uso de 'should' en 8 y 9 hoy día es formal y suena algo anticuado, por lo menos en GB.


----------



## Ivy29

natasha2000 said:


> Ivy29 said:
> 
> 
> 
> jajaja.. si que lo tienes, Ivy... Lo que no tienes son los pechos...
> 
> 
> 
> AQuí decimos PECHO SINGULAR, es como los vaqueros tienen dos pantalones y se llama vaquero, las tijeras tienen dos hojas y se llama tijera.
> 
> Felicidades
> Ivy29
Click to expand...


----------



## natasha2000

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Hewings is right in these examples; 'should' is OK here -- because the writer/speaker's attitude/opinion is being expressed. But this isn't the case in the original example. This distinction doesn't exist in Spanish, hence, I presume, the difficulty.


 
Oh, but it exists!

The problem is that Ivy translates too literally.

"It is inappropriate" shouldn't be translated as inconveniente improcedente, but something like unfair or similar.

*No es justo que se deba volver a darle el premio a ella.*


Meaning, she already won the prize, and now, she is winning again, not giving tha chance to others to win too. I think that this example is a little bit odd, it is one of those stupid examples that can appear only in grammar books, and don't make any sense...

I must admit that in Spanish it sounds really wierd, so I would translate it a little bit more freely...

*Ella no debería volver a recibir el premio.*
*No se le debería volver a otorgar el premio.*

Let me give you another example.

*It is pretty wierd that they should have to seek approval from the gouvernment if they want to marry.*

*Es un poco raro que ellos deban pedir el permiso del gobierno para poder casarse.*



> Felicidades
> Ivy29


Gracias, pero no entiendo, ¿por qué?


----------



## natasha2000

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Así es, pero el uso de 'should' en 8 y 9 hoy día es formal y suena algo anticuado, por lo menos en GB.


 
Wouldn't it be then only in first person singular plural, the same as shall (which is also "aticuado" as I understand from the comments of other natives in other threads)?

If I had known, I should have helped you.

but not when we have other persons.

If he had known, he should  would have helped you.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

natasha2000 said:


> Wouldn't it be then only in first person singular plural, the same as shall (which is also "aticuado" as I understand from the comments of other natives in other threads)?
> 
> If I had known, I should have helped you.
> 
> but not when we have other persons.
> 
> If he had known, he should  would have helped you.



No -- 'would' for all persons; in both your examples should sounds formal and a bit old-fashioned


----------



## natasha2000

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> No -- 'would' for all persons; in both your examples should sounds formal and a bit old-fashioned


 
Maybe I did not make myself clear enough. I KNOW it is old-fashioned NOW.

I was asking, if earlier, when it wasn't old-fashioned and it was still in use, was it used only for first person sing/plur. as shall is/was used, or it was used for all persons?


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

natasha2000 said:


> Oh, but it exists!
> 
> The problem is that Ivy translates too literally.



How do you mean? 

Taking the original "it's improbable that..." and "it is inappropriate/important that...", what choice does the Spanish speaker/writer have to follow these phrases? -- Only a subjunctive, with no possibility, assuming the same verb is used after the 'que', of making this would/should distinction in English. Maybe we're talking about slightly different things?


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

natasha2000 said:


> Maybe I did not make myself clear enough. I KNOW it is old-fashioned NOW.



That puts you ahead of some native English speakers :-D



natasha2000 said:


> I was asking, if earlier, when it wasn't old-fashioned and it was still in use, was it used only for first person sing/plur. as shall is/was used, or it was used for all persons?



Oh I see, sorry; just for first persons.


----------



## natasha2000

Ivy29 said:


> natasha2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> AQuí decimos PECHO SINGULAR, es como los vaqueros tienen dos pantalones y se llama vaquero, las tijeras tienen dos hojas y se llama tijera.
> 
> Felicidades
> Ivy29
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tomarse a pecho
> Aquí encontrarás muchos ejemplos de esta expresión.
> 
> *5. Tomar a pecho
> *- take to heart -
> Tomarse alguna cosa muy en serio, con total responsabilidad. Si se trata de algo realmente trascendente, la frase vale como estímulo; si se trata de "tomarse a pecho" alguna broma, es algo criticable. fuente
> 
> En España se dice vaqueros y tijeras, pero pantalón.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ivy29

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Hewings is right in these examples; 'should' is OK here -- because the writer/speaker's attitude/opinion is being expressed. But this isn't the case in the original example. This distinction doesn't exist in Spanish, hence, I presume, the difficulty.


 
en la oración original también hay una opinión, y además usa el mismo patrón : 
*It +be+ adjective + that clause + should*

In* the ORIGINAL sentence : IT IS  RATHER IMPROBABLE ( reporting clause)( adjective) ( REPORTED clause) : that the visual estimation of motion (SHOULD) be successful.*
*Here an opinion is also expressed with the same FRAME of the examples of Marting Hewings.*

*Ivy29*


----------



## natasha2000

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> That puts you ahead of some native English speakers :-D
> Thanks. It really sounds very wierd to me....
> 
> Oh I see, sorry; just for first persons.
> Exactly what I've thought...


----------



## natasha2000

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> How do you mean?
> 
> Taking the original "it's improbable that..." and "it is inappropriate/important that...", what choice does the Spanish speaker/writer have to follow these phrases? -- Only a subjunctive, with no possibility, assuming the same verb is used after the 'que', of making this would/should distinction in English. Maybe we're talking about slightly different things?


 
Maybe... Everything is possible...
But I have already explained what Imeant in the very same post you quoted... Nº32. I hate literal translations. Usually they don't make any sense.


----------



## Ivy29

natasha2000 said:


> Oh, but it exists!
> 
> The problem is that Ivy translates too literally.
> 
> "It is inappropriate" shouldn't be translated as inconveniente improcedente, but something like unfair or similar.
> 
> *No es justo que se deba volver a darle el premio a ella.*
> 
> 
> Meaning, she already won the prize, and now, she is winning again, not giving tha chance to others to win too. I think that this example is a little bit odd, it is one of those stupid examples that can appear only in grammar books, and don't make any sense...
> 
> I must admit that in Spanish it sounds really wierd, so I would translate it a little bit more freely...
> 
> *Ella no debería volver a recibir el premio.*
> *No se le debería volver a otorgar el premio.*
> 
> Let me give you another example.
> 
> *It is pretty wierd that they should have to seek approval from the gouvernment if they want to marry.*
> 
> *Es un poco raro que ellos deban pedir el permiso del gobierno para poder casarse.*
> 
> 
> Gracias, pero no entiendo, ¿por qué?


 

NAAA, you are using a different CONSTRUCTION and you are translating it differently. I do no play that game. I hope you write Mr. Marting Hewings and tell him how stupid are their examples confusing the NON_NATIVES, certainly you would do a BIG FAVOUR for us.

Cheers
Ivy29


----------



## maestralola

As a native speaker, I agree that would sounds better, but to me, it is conditional in meaning.  
For most native speakers, should is used to give suggestions and it sounds a little old fashioned and very formal in some of the examples given.
For example, It is inappropriate that they should be given the award.
It is grammatically correct, but is not what a native speaker of American English would say.  We might say, It's inappropriate that they be given the award.


----------



## mazbook

Hola Ivy, andaya y todos los foreros que habían participado en este hilo:

First, let me admit, I was *WRONG* when I said that my corrections were about "tense agreement", BUT my examples were (with the changed tenses) correct.  I won't go into why, but I would like to go into detail about how to use would and should in this context—I did a LOT of research on this today—so that the non-native speakers can understand *WHY* the original sentences were incorrect and bad English, regardless of the grammar books.  Here's what one guide to American (and I don't consider these differences to be one between British and American English) English grammar says on the subject:


> *Alas, the*[*se*]* rules have never really described the way Standard users speak the language at nearly all levels or the way they write it in Semiformal and Informal situations.*


Now, back to the sentences in question.
 
"It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion would be successful."
"It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion should be successful."

First, neither would nor should are, in this usage, *conditionals!*  Here they are being used as MODAL AUXILIARIES in an (incorrect) attempt to show the subjunctive mood.  This is incorrect, because English has a perfectly good third person subjunctive conjugation of the verb "to be", so it is totally unnecessary (and bad English) to use a  modal auxiliary to show mood.  Here is the correct sentence *in the subjunctive*, as several others have pointed out already:

"It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion *be* successful."

This still sounds weird to most native English speakers, because native English speakers seldom use the subjunctive and *normally wouldn't* use it alongside a probability (which, if you think about it, is a sort of a conditional).  Here are a couple of examples:

"It is rather improbable that this method is practical, *unless *the first test should succeed." 
"*If* the first test should succeed, I  will withdraw my opposition."
"_*If*_ the test succeeds, it would prove the theory."

These are the *correct *uses of would and should *in* *conditional sentences*.  Would and should are NOT conditionals themselves, except in certain special uses.  And, although I'm less certain of this, I think they do give the phrases in which they are used the subjunctive *mood*.  The subjunctive mood is a bit more common than the *actual* subjunctive in English.

Others on this long, informative thread have offered several very good *rewordings *of the original statements that retain the correct semantic content but put the entire sentence into an indicative mood, which they and I consider much better coloquial English, AND still quite okay for formal writing.

There are MANY other quite different (semantically) uses of the two auxiliary verbs would and should (and will and shall), but those don't belong on this thread.  I'll be happy to send them to anyone interested by private message or e-mail, just ask.

Saludos desde Mazatlán


----------



## mazbook

maestralola said:


> As a native speaker, I agree that would sounds better, but to me, it is conditional in meaning.
> For most native speakers, should is used to give suggestions and it sounds a little old fashioned and very formal in some of the examples given.
> For example, It is inappropriate that they should be given the award.
> It is grammatically correct, but is not what a native speaker of American English would say.  We might say, It's inappropriate that they be given the award.


This sounds weird, since SHOULD (modal auxiliary) is trying to give the subjunctive mood to BE, which is already the correct English subjunctive in this sentence.  It's redundant and therefore sounds weird.

Saludos desde Mazatlán


----------



## Porteño

Originally Posted by *Ivy29* 

 
*It is inappropiate that they should be given the award again.*
*It is important that she should understand what her decision means *

In my humble opinion we could save a lot of time and trouble if these sentences were re-written as they would normally read in BE.
 
It is inappropriate (that) they be given the award again.
It is important (that) she understands what her decision means.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.


----------



## andaya

Gracias por toda la información. 
Y ¿qué me decis de will?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/improbable

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/like/it-is-by-no-means-improbable-that-some-future/348541/

It is the same construction and they use will.


----------



## Ivy29

mazbook said:


> Hola Ivy, andaya y todos los foreros que habían participado en este hilo:
> 
> First, let me admit, I was *WRONG* when I said that my corrections were about "tense agreement", BUT my examples were (with the changed tenses) correct. I won't go into why, but I would like to go into detail about how to use would and should in this context—I did a LOT of research on this today—so that the non-native speakers can understand *WHY* the original sentences were incorrect and bad English, regardless of the grammar books. Here's what one guide to American (and I don't consider these differences to be one between British and American English) English grammar says on the subject:Now, back to the sentences in question.
> 
> "It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion would be successful."
> "It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion should be successful."
> 
> First, neither would nor should are, in this usage, *conditionals!* Here they are being used as MODAL AUXILIARIES in an (incorrect) attempt to show the subjunctive mood. This is incorrect, because English has a perfectly good third person subjunctive conjugation of the verb "to be", so it is totally unnecessary (and bad English) to use a modal auxiliary to show mood. Here is the correct sentence *in the subjunctive*, as several others have pointed out already:
> 
> "It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion *be* successful."
> 
> This still sounds weird to most native English speakers, because native English speakers seldom use the subjunctive and *normally wouldn't* use it alongside a probability (which, if you think about it, is a sort of a conditional). Here are a couple of examples:
> 
> "It is rather improbable that this method is practical, *unless *the first test should succeed."
> "*If* the first test should succeed, I will withdraw my opposition."
> "_*If*_ the test succeeds, it would prove the theory."
> 
> These are the *correct *uses of would and should *in* *conditional sentences*. Would and should are NOT conditionals themselves, except in certain special uses. And, although I'm less certain of this, I think they do give the phrases in which they are used the subjunctive *mood*. The subjunctive mood is a bit more common than the *actual* subjunctive in English.
> 
> Others on this long, informative thread have offered several very good *rewordings *of the original statements that retain the correct semantic content but put the entire sentence into an indicative mood, which they and I consider much better coloquial English, AND still quite okay for formal writing.
> 
> There are MANY other quite different (semantically) uses of the two auxiliary verbs would and should (and will and shall), but those don't belong on this thread. I'll be happy to send them to anyone interested by private message or e-mail, just ask.
> 
> Saludos desde Mazatlán


 
Sorry Mazbook to be so STUBBORN defending NOT MY OPINION because I am NOT A NATIVE but MY GRAMMAR BOOKS MARTING HEWINGS, ADVANCED GRAMMAR IN USE UNIT 48 TITLE SHOULD IN THAT CLAUSES and OXFORD GUIDE TO ENGLISH GRAMMAR, as well as Michaell SWAN.

SHOULD AND WOULD HAVE many roles and one is to be MODAL CONDITIONAL AUXILIRIES and as such they are used according to a very clear pattern in the PROTASIS AND APODOSIS. ( types 0-3) This usage is one of them.
ALSO SHOULD ( NOT WOULD) is used in THAT-CLAUSE as a SUBJUNCTIVE MARKER :
It is INAPPROPIATE they SHOULD be given the award again
It is INAPROPIATE they be given the award again 


It is IMPORTANT that she SHOULD understand what her decision means
It is important that she *UNDERSTAND* what her decision is ( in the subjunctive NO (S).
The above patterns are : IT+BE+ADJECTIVE+ THAT clause + should.
Mazbook you know pretty well, that MODALS do not USE (TO or S) except OUGHT TO. so *SHOULD BE* IS ONE THING AND *BE *ALONE IS ANOTHER as present subjunctive.

If you wish I could write CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS to find out why he uses SHOULD as a MARKER of subjunctive or why they use SHOULD BE.

Sorry again but IT IS NOT MY OPINION *but of* very well-known authors in the English speaking world.
with the verb TO BE an especial verb in many aspects. 
THE PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE is BE for all the personal subjects. I am OLD but not my books .

Ivy29

.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Ivy29 said:


> en la oración original también hay una opinión, y además usa el mismo patrón :
> *It +be+ adjective + that clause + should*
> 
> In* the ORIGINAL sentence : IT IS  RATHER IMPROBABLE ( reporting clause)( adjective) ( REPORTED clause) : that the visual estimation of motion (SHOULD) be successful.*
> *Here an opinion is also expressed with the same FRAME of the examples of Marting Hewings.*
> 
> *Ivy29*



Well, Hewings obviously overgeneralised. Linguists have been known to do that. In fact they do it all the time! Regardless of what he says, 'should' is just not natural English in the original example.


----------



## Ivy29

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Well, Hewings obviously overgeneralised. Linguists have been known to do that. In fact they do it all the time! Regardless of what he says, 'should' is just not natural English in the original example.


 
Being so close to Marting Hewings And the OXFORD staff in UK, it would be very easy for you to give them a ring and tell them they are CONFUSING all NON-NATIVE STUDENTS INCLUDING ME. 
Thanks
Ivy29


----------



## natasha2000

Ivy29 said:


> Being so close to Marting Hewings And the OXFORD staff in UK, it would be very easy for you to give them a ring and tell them they are CONFUSING all NON-NATIVE STUDENTS INCLUDING ME.
> Thanks
> Ivy29


 
Speak for yourself, Ivy. You are taking all that stuff to litterally. Language cannot be observed as a mathenatical equation. Grammar is not an axiom, it can be changed, up-dated and it can differ from place to place...

Besides, grammarians are also humans, so they are not extent of making mistakes, like ovegeneralizing, of example... You should relax, and believe a little bit to people who use the language you are learning on a daily basis.

BTW, is this the book you are talking about? I don't see anywhere OXFORD, the book is published by Cambridge...


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

natasha2000 said:


> Speak for yourself, Ivy. You are taking all that stuff to litterally. Language cannot be observed as a mathenatical equation. Grammar is not an axiom, it can be changed, up-dated and it can differ from place to place...
> 
> Besides, grammarians are also humans, so they are not extent of making mistakes, like ovegeneralizing, of example...



Well said 

(And anyway, Oxford's 150 miles away...)


----------



## andaya

Ivy29 is right, I´ve got the Swan´s grammar and It is as Ivy29 says. That is the reason I am so confused. Google and native speakers say one thing and Michaell Swan and other grammarians say another


----------



## Ivy29

natasha2000 said:


> Speak for yourself, Ivy. You are taking all that stuff to litterally. Language cannot be observed as a mathenatical equation. Grammar is not an axiom, it can be changed, up-dated and it can differ from place to place...
> 
> Besides, grammarians are also humans, so they are not extent of making mistakes, like ovegeneralizing, of example... You should relax, and believe a little bit to people who use the language you are learning on a daily basis.
> 
> BTW, is this the book you are talking about? I don't see anywhere OXFORD, the book is published by Cambridge...


 
Yes it is. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS is the other editorial. I am not being too literally. That's NOT ME but my sources, and I am shocked to read that ALL can be wrong.

Ivy29


----------



## mazbook

andaya said:


> Ivy29 is right, I´ve got the Swan´s grammar and It is as Ivy29 says. That is the reason I am so confused. Google and native speakers say one thing and Michaell Swan and other grammarians say another


This is why I put in the quote 





> *Alas, the*[*se*]* rules have never really described the way Standard users speak the language at nearly all levels or the way they write it in Semiformal and Informal situations.*


This is from one of my favorite grammar books, _The Columbia {University} Guide to Standard American English_.  They seem to take a more realistic view of the way grammar is actually *used. *I agree completely with Porteño:





			
				Porteño said:
			
		

> In my humble opinion we could save a lot of time and trouble if these sentences were re-written as they would normally read in BE. *And AE.*
> 
> It is inappropriate (that) they be given the award again.
> It is important (that) she understands what her decision means.


with one minor correction 

Saludos desde Mazatlán


----------



## Ivy29

natasha2000 said:


> Speak for yourself, Ivy. You are taking all that stuff to litterally. Language cannot be observed as a mathenatical equation. Grammar is not an axiom, it can be changed, up-dated and it can differ from place to place...
> 
> Besides, grammarians are also humans, so they are not extent of making mistakes, like ovegeneralizing, of example... You should relax, and believe a little bit to people who use the language you are learning on a daily basis.
> 
> BTW, is this the book you are talking about? I don't see anywhere OXFORD, the book is published by Cambridge...


 
BESIDES I cannot change my eyes, I cannot change what I am reading and I cannot move their UNITS, NUMERALS, pages to see what you are telling me to read.
It is AMAZING that MR. Martin Hewings DEVOTE a whole chapter UNIT 48 to confuse me and all the students.  
OXFORD HAS TWO SENTENCES page 322, numeral 242.
The committee recommended that the scheme should go ahead
The committee recommended that the scheme go ahead. ( not goes, subjunctive).
Michael Swan page 518, numeral 497:
It is atonishing that she should say that sort of thing to you.

WELL, I cannot change what they wrote, I cannot change their minds and the ones of all the staff in BOTH RENOWN editorial HOUSES.

Ivy29


----------



## mazbook

Ivy, You must remember that those grammar books which you so strongly believe in are written for *native English speakers/students*.  They are *NOT* written for folks like yourself who are learning English as a second (or third or fourth) language.

Also, you should remember that the Oxford grammar is arrived at by a _*majority vote*_ of their panel of advisors.  This means that there can be a LOT of formal grammarians who *disagree.

*I'm NOT saying that any of their examples are *wrong*, just that some of them are not ordinary English usage, so they sound strange to the average native English speaker.  We call this type of English "stilted", "pompous", or "academic".  Here is what the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary says about "academic":





> ACADEMIC applies to scholars or higher institutions of learning; *it may, however, imply slavish conformance to mere rules*


Saludos desde Mazatlán


----------



## natasha2000

Ivy, I am not telling that your grammar books are wrong. I also read many grammar books, but I also dedicated myself to listen to native speakers, i.e. live language that is actually used, not only for English, but also for Spanish, too. Many times you will find discrepancies between these two, especially because there is no English RAE, to collect and determine the rules. I would say that Mr Hewings is too thorrow, so he put all the possibilities that can be used, but maybe he forgot to put a little note for which is used more and which less. That is why I say you shouldn't understand grammar rules you read so literally, and take them as the unique and only truth. Those rules should be guidance lines, not the axiom that cannot be changed. If a language were an axiom, then you would be speaking spanish in the same way as it is spoken in Spain, even though it would be yet to define which Spanish in Spain, since even within Spain there are lot of different ways of Spanish language usage. 
You se things in black and white. Or it is correct or it is wrong. And a language is everything but black and white. Most of the times it is grey. An it has a lot of tones of grey. 

Believe me, I too, was more than once in the same situation as you are now. I also saw the rules as the only given truth. And then, both in Spanish and English, I saw that sometimes, it is not quite as it is written in books. Well, it is, but not quite... Between ny grammar books and native speakers, I find some middle road to good English, as well as Spanish...


----------



## andaya

Entiendo perfectamente a Ivy. 
Sé que la frase en inglés es demasiado formal y que hay otras formas más habituales o coloquiales de decirla, pero eso no impide que queramos saber si debe o no debe usarse should o cualquier otro auxiliar y el porqué, aunque luego nunca lo usemos nosotros al hablar en inglés.


----------



## natasha2000

andaya said:


> Entiendo perfectamente a Ivy.
> Sé que la frase en inglés es demasiado formal y que hay otras formas más habituales o coloquiales de decirla, pero eso no impide que queramos saber si debe o no debe usarse should o cualquier otro auxiliar y el porqué, aunque luego nunca lo usemos nosotros al hablar en inglés.


 
Alguien ha dicho eso? Yo no lo noté.... Además, creoq ue habéis obtenido una respuesta bastante buena y detallada. Otra cosa es que a vosotros dos no os guste la misma...


----------



## andaya

Entonces al final es would , will o be porque han dicho todas.
A mi me gustan las respuestas y las agradezco.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Ivy29 said:


> It is AMAZING that MR. Martin Hewings DEVOTE a whole chapter UNIT 48 to confuse me and all the students.
> OXFORD HAS TWO SENTENCES page 322, numeral 242.
> The committee recommended that the scheme should go ahead
> The committee recommended that the scheme go ahead. ( not goes, subjunctive).
> Michael Swan page 518, numeral 497:
> It is atonishing that she should say that sort of thing to you.
> 
> WELL, I cannot change what they wrote, I cannot change their minds and the ones of all the staff in BOTH RENOWN editorial HOUSES.
> 
> Ivy29



And these illustrious writers (who I've never heard of, by the way!) are correct. Because these are *different types of sentence* to the one you originally gave, as has already been explained to you. You could do worse than to calm down and read others' responses.


----------



## Ivy29

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> And these illustrious writers (who I've never heard of, by the way!) are correct. Because these are *different types of sentence* to the one you originally gave, as has already been explained to you. You could do worse than to calm down and read others' responses.


 
The PATTERN is the same It+be+adjective+that+should. or you think the pattern is different ??
I'm  frozen to death 

Ivy29


----------



## Geoff Jordan

In many contexts, should and would mean the same. In the original example 

It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion would be successful


It is rather improbable that the visual estimation of motion should be successful

both mean the same. "Would" is to be preferred because "should" also means "ought to be".


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Ivy29 said:


> The PATTERN is the same It+be+adjective+that+should. or you think the pattern is different ??
> I'm  frozen to death
> 
> Ivy29



The pattern's the same, but the semantics is different. Get warm soon


----------



## natasha2000

Ivy29 said:


> The PATTERN is the same It+be+adjective+that+should. or you think the pattern is different ??
> I'm frozen to death
> 
> Ivy29


 
Ivy, language IS NOT mathematics. If one pettern means one thing with certain words, the same pattern just changing the words can mean completelly different thing.


----------



## Ivy29

natasha2000 said:


> Ivy, language IS NOT mathematics. If one pettern means one thing with certain words, the same pattern just changing the words can mean completelly different thing.


 

I know that. But if a construction of SHOULD in a THAT clause has :
IT =is the same IMPERSONAL PRONOUN in ENGLISH
BE=VERB TO BE .
adjective= IMPROBABLE
THAT = relative pronoun
SHOULD= Modal marker of subjunctive. ( in this pattern)
I didn't know that changing just words of same word-class the structure cannot be used as a subjunctive.
WE are not talking about 'meaning' or semantics we are talking about SYNTAX.

Ivy29


----------



## natasha2000

Ivy29 said:


> I know that. But if a construction of SHOULD in a THAT clause has :
> IT =is the same IMPERSONAL PRONOUN in ENGLISH
> BE=VERB TO BE .
> adjective= IMPROBABLE
> THAT = relative pronoun
> SHOULD= Modal marker of subjunctive. ( in this pattern)
> I didn't know that changing just words of same word-class the structure cannot be used as a subjunctive.
> WE are not talking about 'meaning' or semantics we are talking about SYNTAX.
> 
> Ivy29


 
Ivy, as many people here have already said, *should* is NOT wrong. It's just that with a time, it stopped to be used as much as _*would*_ in those kind of sentences, and it kept only its meaning of proposition, suggestion i.e. - deber de. That is why although syntactically correct, from the semantic point of view it sounds odd nowadays.


----------



## Porteño

Sorry, I don't wish to be rude but doesn't anyone think it's about time this seemingly interminable discussion drew to a close. Enough has been said to make quite clear when 'should' is or isn't appropriate in modern English usage, regardless of what some, to me unknown, academic grammarians might wish to be the case.


----------



## Ivy29

Porteño said:


> Sorry, I don't wish to be rude but doesn't anyone think it's about time this seemingly interminable discussion drew to a close. Enough has been said to make quite clear when 'should' is or isn't appropriate in modern English usage, regardless of what some, to me unknown, academic grammarians might wish to be the case.


 
I agree to differ, but CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS and OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS ARE world renown editorial houses.

And I AGREE tol DIFFER.

Cheers
Ivy29


----------



## Porteño

Hi! ivy29.

I agree that OUP and CUP are well-known publishers but they only publish what others write, they are neither grammarians nor authorities and do they take direct responsibility for what is written, that is the author's problem. 

When I used the word grammarians I was referring to the other gentleman who you quoted so fully during this discussion, he is quite unknown to me and apparently to several other forummers (_foreros_).

Best wishes and enjoy your weekend.


----------



## expatriotlaguy

Ivy29 said:


> I agree to differ, but CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS and OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS ARE world renown editorial houses.
> 
> And I AGREE tol DIFFER
> 
> Cheers
> Ivy29




They are indeed renowned--especially for taking an acedemic view of things.  The use of *should* as a subjunctive marker is very old-fashioned and stuffy to modern speakers of English, even in serious, formal prose.  *Would* is more common, since *should* is so heavily overloaded already, or the subjunctive is avoided altogether.

The original sentence, "It is improbable that..."  should have been re-worded and simplified to be clearer, anyway, as several have suggested.


----------

