# Use of 'would' for vagueness



## Unique.s

I have been told that modal 'would' can be used to express 'vagueness'. Its usage has been linked below but I'm not fully convinced yet with it because i don't know in what kind of context it would be approprite to use 'would' for 'vagueness'. Do 'would' carries any kind of meanings when it is used in those contexts? Is it formal or natural to use?


1.You use would , or sometimes would have with a past participle, when you are expressing your opinion about something or seeing if people agree with you, especially when you are uncertain about what you are saying. [vagueness] ⇒ I think you'd agree he's a very respected columnist. ⇒ I would have thought it a proper job for the Army to fight rebellion. ⇒ 'Was it much different for you when you started at the Foreign Office?'—'Worse, I'd expect.'. ⇒ I would imagine she's quite lonely living on her own.


Source :Definition of “would” | Collins English Dictionary



I would appreciate your helpfull responses.Thank you.


----------



## PaulQ

Unique.s said:


> Does 'would' carries any kind of meanings while using it when it is used in these contexts?


I would say that it carries the meaning in paragraph 1.





> Is it formal or natural to use?


It is natural.

PS
I came to know have been told/have read that the modal 'would' can be used to express 'vagueness'. We do not us "to come to know" in current English - it is very old fashioned.


----------



## Unique.s

I've corrected my mistake

Could you please give me contexual examples for it ? Please explain its usage


----------



## PaulQ

Unique.s said:


> 1.You use would , or sometimes would have with a past participle, when you are expressing your opinion about something


I *would have thought* that y*ou would have understood* what this meant.


> or seeing if people agree with you,


*Would *you *agree* that this is a good explanation?" 





> especially when you are uncertain about what you are saying.


*Would *my answer *be* correct or have I made a mistake?


----------



## Unique.s

What is the meaning of your first sentence''I would have thought that you would have understood what this meant " i find difficult to understand this sentence.

 And your second sentence is a question It would be better if you could give me examples without asking question, it makes me often confused because i tend to think that 'would' is used for politeness or polite request. For example: would you like tea or coffee ?

I think "'would have thought"= past unfulfiled desire


----------



## PaulQ

"I would have thought" is the unreal past:

If I had thought about the matter [then] I would have thought that you would have understood what this meant [but I have not thought about it.]"

Compare: If I had gone to town, I would have bought you a hat [but I did not go to town.]"


----------



## Unique.s

So, what a structure odd it is to understand. Could you please tell me in which context or situation 'would have though' or similar construction used?

Do you mean it's just like:

 If you had done your homework, you would have passed.


But it's conditionals, how to understand the use of would for "vagueness' ?


----------



## Cagey

I don't understand the question.  Each of the examples given in the dictionary could be rewritten as a direct assertion.  The version with 'would' softens the statement.   

I think you'd agree he's a very respected columnist.
_I think you agree that he's a very respected columnist. _

I would have thought it a proper job for the Army to fight rebellion
_I thought it a proper job for the Army to fight rebellion._

Was it much different for you when you started at the Foreign Office?'—
Worse, I'd expect.'. 
_Worse, I expect._

I would imagine she's quite lonely living on her own.
_I imagine she's quite lonely living on her own. _​
This 'would' is similar to the 'would' used in conditional, but no specific condition is actually implied.  The 'would' makes the statement a suggestion instead of an assertion.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Cagey said:


> The version with 'would' softens the statement...  The 'would' makes the statement a suggestion instead of an assertion.



And this softener "would" is extremely common in native speakers' speech. For example, they usually answer questions on the WR forum using "would" even when they are 100% sure and have every explanation and authentic source to support their answers -- something that, during my first days on WR, made me slightly cautious about accepting such answers as the final authority.


----------



## Unique.s

So, how can we understand and use "would" in this way? 

Is it idiomatic?  Or does they carry any meanings ?

What are the meanings of the sentences that have been used in the examples of collins dictionary?

I'm also not understanding use of would here in the examples


----------



## Englishmypassion

Hello, Unique,
Cagey has already explained in her post above that "would" is used to soften the tone or to say things politely. Cagey has also explained that the meanings of the same sentences could also be expressed directly without using "would" but those direct sentences would not have that politeness.
Yes, I would say the use of "would" as a softener is very common and idiomatic.


----------



## Unique.s

You mean without using" could " ?
I think it is your typo ,isn't it ?



Englishmypassion said:


> would



You are saying politely using "would" ?



PaulQ said:


> I *would have thought* that y*ou would have understood* what this meant.




Please make the clear the meaning of this sentences.'would' has only the meaning of politeness? It's very difficult for me to understand.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Unique.s said:


> You mean without using" could " ?
> I think it is your typo ,isn't it ?



Of course, it was a typo.  I have corrected that in my post now.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Unique.s said:


> You are saying politely using "would" ?



Yes, when I say "I would say 'would' is used commonly to put something politely", I am using the "would" (in red above) to put my answer politely.


----------



## Unique.s

I'm so glad to talk to you. But I'm not yet convinced with its usage especially the one that I've mentioned in my question.

"Would have thought"


----------



## Florentia52

Please re-read Cagey's post #8, Unique.s. What is still confusing you about this usage?


----------



## Andre 3000

As Cagey and others have mentioned, we use 'past' forms to soften/distance ourselves from what is being said. The following sentences could all be used in the here and now:
a. What is your name?
b. What was your name?
a. Will you come this way?
b. Would you come this way?
a. I can come tomorrow.
b. I could come tomorrow.

The 'b' sentences all allow us to maintain a polite social distance.


----------



## Cagey

Unique.s said:


> I'm so glad to talk to you. But I'm not yet convinced with its usage especially the one that I've mentioned in my question.
> 
> "Would have thought"


You may get more helpful answer if you ask this question in the Indo-Iranian Languages forum.  There you can ask how people would translate this into your own language.  That may make it clearer to you.


----------



## Unique.s

Cagey said:


> You may get more helpful answer if you ask this question in the Indo-Iranian Languages forum.  There you can ask how people would translate this into your own language.  That may make it clearer to you.



 do you completly agree with Englishmypassion ?


----------



## johngiovanni

I would say "I would say..." not for politeness but to mean "This is how I would say it".  (Sometimes I am aware of the possibility that other English speakers, perhaps people in other countries, might use different words or constructions).
However, I do agree that we often use the conditional because it sounds more polite.


----------



## Unique.s

Do you agree that 'would' has been used for politeness and softness in the examples that I've providen in my question itself?


----------



## Unique.s

Can I say?
 "I would have thought Tom the best expert in this wordrference.com."

or,

I would think Tom the best expert in this wordreference.com"

so, what's the difference in meaning between these two sentence ?


----------



## e2efour

As your reference in #1 says, _would_ can be use used to express an opinion.
We can associate its use with many nouns, which have degrees of uncertainty.

The problem is that there are several of these associations and two of them can co-exist in the same sentence.
For example, if I talk about the distance of the moon from the Earth, I could say: _I would say it's XXX miles away_.

This expresses
1) Uncertainty (I'm not sure)
2) Diffidence/tentativeness (I don't want to sound dogmatic)
3) Politeness (using _would_ as a softener)
4) Giving an opinion (If you ask me, this is what I think)
_Vagueness_ is not a word I have heard associated with _would_, but it sounds like a form of uncertainty.
It can also be a way of giving your opinion: if you ask me, this is what I think.

If you want to contradict someone, you might say _I would have thought it was XXX miles away _(you're wrong about the distance). (This is only one meaning of _I would have thought_.)

As I have said, categories 1-4 are not exclusive and may be combined. Nor are they complete; I am bound to have left some out. 
You can also see from the different interpretations in this thread that there are no black and white answers to your questions.

Your sentences in #22:

"I would have thought Tom (was) the best expert on/at  this wordreference.com." (Contradiction or disagreeing with someone, but it could also be just expressing an opinion)
"I would think/say that Tom was the best expert on/at this wordreference.com" (2), 3) and 4))


----------



## Unique.s

@e2efour, your answer is quite helpfull, I've no words to explain for it. Now, I came to know that I would think/expect/say/imagin/ etc are used for 1.tentativeness or creating distance from what we say
2. For politeness or to be indirect
3. Giving openion with softness . . . .
Or mixture of them.

Now, I'm still confused in the use of '' I would have+p.p which you said is used for disagreeing with someone or giving openion.
I would think that giving openion is itself contradicting or disagreeing with someone. So, I still could say that "I would think" and "I would have thought" give the same meanings. But you said they are different. Why ?

Do you mean that ''I would have thought" is more indirect or polite than "I would think" ?


----------



## e2efour

Giving an opinion can mean agreeing with someone, but expressing your agreement in a different way.

The meanings of _I would think and I would have thought_ depend on the context in which they are said.
The first seems a way of giving an opinion, while the second I would use to contradict someone.

Example:
A: _She died of a broken heart._
B: _Really? [You don't say!] I would have thought that she died from an overdose of drugs. _This is more than just saying what you think.

If you have not done so, I suggest you read I would have thought vs. I thought. You might get some help there.


----------



## PaulQ

A: “Have some of this.”
B: “What is it?”
A: “It is cheese.”
B: “I hate cheese.”
A(i): ''I would have thought that you liked cheese." = If someone, some time ago, had asked me if you liked cheese, I would, at that time, have said that you liked cheese - that is why I offered it to you.” <- In reality, nobody has ever asked A that question, so it is all unreal. A is describing his speculation – his guess.

B: “Where do you think John is?”
A(ii) "I would think that he will be home by now." = If I were to think about the matter for a while, (i.e. If I were to consider the matter,) I would think (be of the opinion) that he will be home by now."  <- A speaks in the conditional form to show that he is speculating as he does not have the information. A speculates what *he would now say* based on his previous experience.

This is good advice:


Cagey said:


> You may get more helpful answer if you ask this question in the Indo-Iranian Languages forum.  There you can ask how people would translate this into your own language.  That may make it clearer to you.


----------



## Unique.s

@e2efour and@paulQ Thank you very much for responding me and for suggesting the link which was very helpfull.

"After reading both the answers and linked content, I'd think "I would have thought' is a way of contradicting, or putting an openion which we had thought before a moment ago and now that openion(which was in the past) have changed so, Now we have different openion than before."
for example(as @e2efour has mentioned in 25#):

A. She died of a broken heart.
B. Reallyp? I would have thought that she died from an overdrugs of drugs.
Here, the B is agreeing with A but he(B) is showing is openion about what he had thought before. Or he(B) had thouht that she died of an overdose of drugs but After listening to A, now he accepts (A) that she died of broken heart.

Here, I would have thought" is the same as " I had thought before"

I don't see any contradiction here. Do you mean showing the openion(which was in the past or a moment ago) is contradicting with someone ?


----------



## e2efour

What B says is that A is wrong. B thinks (and thought before) that she died from an overdose. This is a contradiction.

_I would have thought _can refer to the past.
A._ When I got married, my husband couldn't cook anything._
B._ Reallly? I would have thought he would have been able to boil an egg!
_
Here B is just expressing what he or she thinks or takes for granted. It is not a contradiction.


----------



## Unique.s

e2efour,  you said "I would have thought" refers to both past and present. Am i right? You also said it's used for both 'disagreeing with someone and giving the openion.It suggests that this phrase is an idiom (as it doesn't give its literel meaning) and works both for contradicting and giving an opinion.That's why, I'm puzzled between its meanings wheather to use it for contradicting or for giving opinion ?

on the other hand, this phrase also seems like conditional ( If he had told me ,I would have thought about it ) but the if clause left out. But it doesn't give such meanings eaither. so it's useless to say that this phrase is conditional. what would you suggest me ?


----------



## Forero

I see all of these _would_s as condtional forms. Not all conditions have to be explicit.

In particular, "I would have thought ..." in the contexts given here means "Had you not just told me otherwise, I would have thought ...."

And something like "I would imagine ..." often means "Were it appropriate, I would imagine ...."

"I would expect ..." often means "Were I to presume to know more about this than you do, I would expect ...."

The idea of "politeness" may derive from ideas of humility and unwillingness to directly contradict what someone else has said or may believe to the contrary, perhaps to avoid unwittingly starting an argument.

The idea of "vagueness", then, derives from the fact that people trying to sound humble or unwilling to contradict really have something to say but are just not saying it clearly.


----------



## Unique.s

thank you very much@ forero, for your openion........But  i still want to ask the same question to @e2efour that I've asked in
b:#29 ? could you please respond me ?


----------



## e2efour

Unique.s said:


> e2efour,  you said "I would have thought" refers to both past and present. Am i right? You also said it's used for both 'disagreeing with someone and giving the openion.It suggests that this phrase is an idiom (as it doesn't give its literel meaning) and works both for contradicting and giving an opinion.That's why, I'm puzzled between its meanings wheather to use it for contradicting or for giving opinion ?
> 
> on the other hand, this phrase also seems like conditional ( If he had told me ,I would have thought about it ) but the if clause left out. But it doesn't give such meanings eaither. so it's useless to say that this phrase is conditional. what would you suggest me ?



I thought I had answered this  in #28. 

_I would have thought_ is *not* a conditional phrase, although it can be plausibly turned into one (as Forero has done). This may help you to understand or remember it.
A conditional sentence has to have the word _if_ or inversion with _should_ (_Should you find it too difficult, I will ...)._

But it also depends on what you mean by _conditional_. Some people call _should/would_ conditional tenses, but this is not a general view. If you say that the phrase is _conditional_, what is it conditional on?
_Rain tomorrow will prevent us from eating outside in the garden._ This is not a conditional sentence, although eating outside is conditional on it raining the previous day.

_I would have thought _does not have to express disagreement. It can just express someone's opinion. It can have a past or present time reference (e.g. past: _I would have thought that the train arrived at 2 pm_).

I would recommend you to treat it as a set phrase for expressing disagreement, contradiction or your opinion generally.


----------



## Forero

e2efour said:


> ...
> But it also depends on what you mean by _conditional_. Some people call _should/would_ conditional tenses, but this is not a general view. If you say that the phrase is _conditional_, what is it conditional on?


I am using the terminology, still in common use, that I was taught in school, in which "conditional" does not mean "dependent" but is used of a verb form with which to express a consequence of the speaker's (way of) reasoning about things, which is especially useful when the things in question exist only in the imagination. For example, in "I would turn back if I were you", I am obviously not you, but I still want to tell you this. You can add it to what you already know, and it might even protect you.

I may even shorten my sentence to "I'd turn back", and you can still get the same message from it.

My point is that, to me, the literal meaning is conditional, in two senses: (1) It can be accompanied, with no change of meaning to it, by a "contrafactual" clause or an adverbial of purpose (e.g. _if_ + "past" subjunctive, "past" subjunctive + inversion, a _to_ infinitive, _for_ + a gerund, etc.), and (2) It translates to something callled a "conditional mood" verb form in languages that have such things.

With "I would have thought it a proper job for the Army to fight rebellion", I am telling you that present reality may contradict me (and of course we have to acknowledge present reality), but my imagination, in which I can ignore hindsight for purposes of imparting my wisdom if I dare call it that, sees me having thought it a proper job for the Army to fight rebellion.

In other words "I would have thought" here is not so much about what I think but about how I think. This is abstract, but not vague, in my view. I call it frank communication, unfettered even by any obvious shackles of reality, of the speaker's logic/way of thinking.

(By the way, I don't claim to know all about the "proper job" of "the Army", but this is not my sentence. However, it still means what it means.)

I see this sentence quite starkly, not as a softening of anything.


----------



## e2efour

As far as am concerned, you are just turning the phrase into a conditional sentence, which you can do if you want.
Conditional clauses in grammar *have* to be introduced by some kind of conjunction, such as _if_, _so long as_, _as long as_, _provided that_ and _on condition that.

I would have thought that _contains no such conjunction.

You can use terms like _implied conditional_, _indirect conditional_ etc. to illustrate how you understand the phrase, but it is not a conditional per se.


----------



## Unique.s

Forero and @e2efour, do you mean "i would have thought" is used for both giving openion and disagreeing with someone politely or without being direct ?

As I've learned that "I would think" is used for giving openion ,politeness , showing uncertainty,softening etc
"I would have thought" should also share the same characteristics as  It's only past version of "I would think".

Example:
A: She died of a broken heart.
B: Really? I would have thought that she died from an overdose of drugs.

Here, 'B' is showing his opinion(He thought it in the past and still thinks it in present) that he's right in his openion. He thought that she died from an overdose in the past and still thinks so.He disagree with 'A', so ,he's showing his opinion to disagree 'A'.
Am i right here ?

'B' could also use "I would think" to show his opinion but why did he use "I would have thought' ?

 He could also use "I thought" to show his opinion but He didn't use it why?


----------



## e2efour

In the sentence (#35) B is contradicting (disagreeing with) A. It's not possible to say when B first had this opinion. It may even be a spur-of-the-moment opinion, i.e. B has just made up his mind.
If B had said _I would think ... _I would say that he is not so certain about his opinion; it's a more tentative statement.
If B had said _I thought she died from an overdose_, it's a statement of his earlier opinion. It is something like _Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that she had died from an overdose.
_
What I am saying is that _I would have thought that ... _is a formula or set phrase which can be used to contradict someone or to state bluntly (compare Forero's "frank communication") the view that is held. I agree that there is no "softening" of what is said.

The meaning of _I would have thought that_ will no doubt vary with the context and who says it. For example, by using "Really?" you are almost saying _I don't believe it.
_
In the Longman Grammar of Written and Spokent English it is described as "politely putting a point of disagreement".
In another grammar _approximation _is used: "He's forty odd I would have thought." This just expresses uncertainty of the person's age.


----------



## Forero

Unique.s said:


> Forero and @e2efour, do you mean "i would have thought" is used for both giving openion and disagreeing with someone politely or without being direct ?
> 
> As I've learned that "I would think" is used for giving openion ,politeness , showing uncertainty,softening etc
> "I would have thought" should also share the same characteristics as  It's only past version of "I would think".
> 
> Example:
> A: She died of a broken heart.
> B: Really? I would have thought that she died from an overdose of drugs.
> 
> Here, 'B' is showing his opinion(He thought it in the past and still thinks it in present) that he's right in his openion. He thought that she died from an overdose in the past and still thinks so.He disagree with 'A', so ,he's showing his opinion to disagree 'A'.


I don't read it that way. I see B's answer as saying that B would have believed she died from drugs, not that B still believes it. B is asking whether A's statement might be a joke or something ("Really?") but is not claiming to have a current opinion yet.

I think all this talk of "opinion", "politeness", "uncertainty", "softening", "vagueness", etc., is making our language look more complicated than it really is.

Why not apply Occam's razor to dispense with all these poorly defined notions and just say that some English speakers are fond of understatement and that B's sentences here may be an example of that?

A's statement is probably metaphorical, referring to something other than an anatomical heart, but heart attacks really are more likely in people whose "hearts" are broken.

Interpretation of metaphor is a complicated science, but I think most speakers of most languages can do the requisite extrapolation once they understand that there may be understatement involved. Right?





> Am i right here?
> 
> 'B' could also use "I would think" to show his opinion but why did he use "I would have thought' ?
> 
> He could also use "I thought" to show his opinion but He didn't use it why?


Since I don't know person B, I can't say for sure what he or she really believes based on these sentences, but "I would think" is still a valid way to say "I would think", and B would not be wrong to say that that way if that were what he or she meant.

As to why B might want to understate his/her stance, your guess is as good as mine, but if B really thinks "I cannot believe you. I think she died from an overdose", he or she could easily utter "Right?" as a rhetorical question and the "would have thought" sentence as understatement, and A may be familiar enough with B's propensity for understatement that he/she knows he/she may have to present some evidence, or at least an argument.

Does that help?


----------



## Unique.s

@ e2efour and @Forero, Now, I came to the point that 'B' made  that statement ( Really!  I would have thought she died from an overdose of drugs ) for clearification of the A 's statement. It's just like the following example :


A.Do you know , Mt Everest is located in India.
B.Really! I would have thought it's in Nepal.


or

A.Buddha was born in china.
B. But I would have thought he was born in Nepal.

Both in the examples ,B disagree with 'A'. so, he puts his opinion against' B' and doing so , B is politely disagreeing with A.
  'B' is putting his opinion against 'A'  because' B' doesn't really believe 'A'.
Again, 'B' doesn't want be direct in his opinion or he's uncertain about his openion( buddha was born in Nepal and Mt Everest is in Nepal) . first of all , B thinks that A is joking ,so,for the clearification of the statement of A , B is putting his opinion. Am i correct ?
It's just like "I would think" but " I would have thought'is more indirect or shows openion+tentativeness+contradiction.
Am i correct ?

 But ,In the example , b:#28 , you said"I would have thought"  doesn't show contradiction but only shows openion why?  Is it Its another meaning?


----------



## Forero

Unique.s said:


> @ e2efour and @Forero, Now, I came to the point that 'B' made  that statement ( Really!  I would have thought she died from an overdose of drugs ) for clearification of the A 's statement. It's just like the following example :
> 
> A.Do you know , Mt Everest is located in India.
> B.Really! I would have thought it's in Nepal.
> 
> or
> 
> A.Buddha was born in china.
> B. But I would have thought he was born in Nepal.
> 
> Both in the examples ,B disagree with 'A'. so, he puts his opinion against' B' and doing so , B is politely disagreeing with A.
> 'B' is putting his opinion against 'A'  because' B' doesn't really believe 'A'.
> Again, 'B' doesn't want be direct in his opinion or he's uncertain about his openion( buddha was born in Nepal and Mt Everest is in Nepal) . first of all , B thinks that A is joking ,so,for the clearification of the statement of A , B is putting his opinion. Am i correct ?
> It's just like "I would think" but " I would have thought'is more indirect or shows openion+tentativeness+contradiction.
> Am i correct ?
> 
> But ,In the example , b:#28 , you said"I would have thought"  doesn't show contradiction but only shows openion why?  Is it Its another meaning?


I really don't see any other meaning in "I would have thought" than I have already spelled out.

I would never use "I would have thought" to introduce my current actual belief.


----------



## Unique.s

I'm again asking with my openion. Could you please correct me :

@ e2efour and @Forero, Now, I came to the point that 'B' made  that statement ( Really!  I would have thought she died from an overdose of drugs ) for clearification of the A 's statement. It's just like the following example :


A.Do you know , Mt Everest is located in India.
B.Really! I would have thought it's in Nepal.


or

A.Buddha was born in china.
B. But I would have thought he was born in Nepal.

Both in the examples ,B disagree with 'A'. so, he puts his opinion against' B' and doing so , B is politely disagreeing with A.
  'B' is putting his opinion against 'A'  because' B' doesn't really believe 'A'.
Again, 'B' doesn't want be direct in his opinion or he's uncertain about his openion( buddha was born in Nepal and Mt Everest is in Nepal) . first of all , B thinks that A is joking ,so,for the clearification of the statement of A , B is putting his opinion. Am i correct ?
It's just like "I would think" but " I would have thought'is more indirect or shows openion+tentativeness+contradiction.
Am i correct ?

But ,In the example , b:#28 , you said"I would have thought"  doesn't show contradiction but only shows openion why?  Is it Its another meaning?


----------



## e2efour

I would say that B is expressing his fairly strong belief, which comes across as a contradiction (I would say _Really_ with a downward intonation)._ Really_ may also be a sign of sarcasm.
If he was changing his belief, he would have said _I thought_ (_Really_ with an upward intonation).
_
I would think it's Nepal_ shows less certainty and does not comes across to me as a contradiction. In other words, in saying _I would think_, B is being tentative, diffident, hesitant (or whatever wou want to call it).

See the following, which says:

"... people often say *I'd have thought* when what they really mean is *I think*. It's just a kind of 'distancing circumlocution' that often conveys more a sense of _polite deference_, rather than hesitant uncertainty or conditionality."
This reference also gives two examples (in the past) where the speaker seems to be expressing a belief that is no longer held. It also hints at a possible difference between BE and AE.
("Would have thought" in context)

So we have two possible interpretations of _I would have thought_: contradiction or expressing an earlier belief.


----------



## Unique.s

@e2efour, Now It has been clear that the phrase "I would have thought" means "I think" with more polite deference, more indirect and with more than necessary words ( "I think" is enough to convey the same meaning but "i would have thought" includes unnecessary words: 'would have')
 As you said  this phrase is used for both purpose in past and present time reference ,depending on the condition:

1.for diagreeing with someone politely 
2.for expressing an earlier opinion politely( the opinion which was in the past and but no longer exist)

I think I got it what you mean.didn't I ?

*what about the examples that I have given about Nepal , how would you interpret that? As you said it doesn't show contradiction, I think I'm wrong to give the examples.so, should I re-aggange my examples to convey the sense of contradiction?

*Could you think any of the examples that convey both the meaning (the 2 meanings that I've listened above) of "I would have thought"  ?


----------



## manfy

I just skimmed through the first and last few posts, but I think your understanding of those phrases is close enough.

Just don't take the descriptions too literally and as "written in stone". More than 50% of human communication happens through non-verbal means, i.e. body language, intonation, context (including those things that are written or said "in between the lines"). All of this can change the effective meaning of any given phrase, even though the literal core meaning seems to remain unchanged.

Here's my take on how I'd use this phrase to express sarcasm:
_A.Do you know , Mt Everest is located in India.
me: Oh, really! I would have thought it's still in Nepal._

If A is a boasting know-it-all, I might be inclined to spell out this sarcasm a bit more clearly:

_A.Do you know , Mt Everest is located in India.
me: Oh, really! On every other day I would have thought Everest is in Nepal. But now that you have proclaimed this breaking news so convincingly, there's little I can say. I guess, tectonic plate shift must have been really busy over the last 2 months, because that's the last time I checked, and back then the summit was still in the border region of Nepal and Tibet... !!_

The short and simple "Oh, really! I would have thought it's still in Nepal." can express all this and more in an unspoken form if you choose your intonation and body language wisely.


----------



## Unique.s

Thank you very much@ manfy for your helpfull respons to my question.

Now still
I would like to ask the same question to @e2efour , because I have been talking with him with great enthusiasm


----------



## e2efour

A good point is made by manfy about the non-verbal aspects of conveying semantics.

_I would have thought that Mt Everest was in Nepal _(without _Really?_, which in itself suggests sarcasm or contradiction) seems to me to be different from _I thought it was in Nepal. _
The problem is that we don't know what the person who says this believes to be true. 
If they know that Nepal is the right country, then they are contradicting the statement that Mt Everest is in India. 
If they have changed their belief, they would probably just say _I thought_, although it is possible to take _I would have thought_ to mean _Before you said it was in India, I had thought it was in Nepal_. 

I suspect that different people use _I would have thought_ in different ways. In that case we should perhaps pay more attention to how it is said.

Another way of saying _I would have thought_ is _I would have expected._
Example: A man writes to the hotel he has booked to ask whether the hotel can put a kettle and two cups in the room before he arrives.
The hotel does not reply. He then writes to the hotel: _I would have thought that you would have agreed to my request._
There is no contradiction here, but a prior expectation is involved.
He is not really giving his opinion, but just informing the hotel that he had expected a positive reply (which he did not get).
He mght have written instead _I had thought that you would have agreed to my request_, although this is a more direct way of writing.


----------



## Unique.s

@e2efour, Thank you for replying me.
In my both examples, 'B' right to say that  Mt Everest is in Nepal and Buddha was born In Nepal. But 'A' is wrong in his openion.
 That's why , Does 'B' express contradiction againt 'A' in my both examples ? In b:#40 ?


----------



## e2efour

I think that we have polite disagreement in both sentences. It's not a case of B changing his mind or just expressing his belief.
The context or the way in which the sentences are spoken should make it clear.
I don't think I can say any more about this.


----------



## Unique.s

@e2efour,  Polite disagreement is also a contradiction. Isn't it ?


----------



## e2efour

It's a subset of contradiction, certainly.


----------



## Cagey

People have done their best to answer the original question, and the discussion has begun to drift.  

This thread has gone on long enough, and is closed.
Thank you to everyone who participated.

Cagey, moderator


----------

