# Using "would be"



## M56

Any ideas as to why "would" is used here?

1. "...I do have some answers for you. You asked about one person declaring all the income and one taking all the expense. The answer to that would be no."

..............

2.

A: Are you Steve, the guy who lives near my sister?

B: Yes, that would be me.

.........

3. 

Two travelers see a dog get hit by a truck.

A: Did you see that? Horrible!

B: That would be one dead dog.


----------



## James Stephens

The use of "would be" in instances like these is a comic device used to achieve wry humor, humor with a sardonic tinge, a supercilious tone. It communicates the disinterest of the speaker, as if he were stepping outside the situation, assessing it, and giving a probable conclusion with a humourous undertone. This is not standard English.


----------



## MrPedantic

It seems standard to me; and not necessarily humorous:

1. The answer to that would be no.

I wonder if we can take this as the rump of a "type 2" conditional:

2. If you were to ask me that question (again), the answer would be no.

MrP


----------



## elroy

I've always wondered about why we say "would be" in such situations. Don't have an answer, though - except that I think it's more emphatic than just "is/are."


----------



## river

_Would _can express probability as James suggests: "I hear a siren." "That would be the police." But I never hear "would be" used that way.


----------



## elroy

river said:
			
		

> _Would _can express probability as James suggests: "I hear a siren." "That would be the police." But I never hear "would be" used that way.


 
To me, that would mean that it was definitely the police.  Otherwise, I'd say "might be."


----------



## MrPedantic

If we say "the answer is no", we have given a direct answer to a direct question. We have put our interlocutor in the position of "being refused".

But if we say "the answer would be no", we have told our interlocutor what we would answer, if the question were put. Our interlocutor saves face; and we ourselves avoid a direct refusal. 

So perhaps at bottom it's a deferential type 2 conditional: "if you were to ask me that, the answer would be no; so it would be better for both of us if you didn't ask."

It's a kind of Bartleby gambit.

MrP


----------



## M56

James Stephens said:
			
		

> . This is not standard English.


 
!!! Says who?


----------



## M56

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> It seems standard to me; and not necessarily humorous:
> 
> 1. The answer to that would be no.
> 
> I wonder if we can take this as the rump of a "type 2" conditional:
> 
> 2. If you were to ask me that question (again), the answer would be no.
> 
> MrP


 
Bit of a stretch.


----------



## river

I think "would be" expresses a sense of probability rather than certainty. But, that would be me.


----------



## M56

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> If we say "the answer is no", we have given a direct answer to a direct question. We have put our interlocutor in the position of "being refused".
> 
> But if we say "the answer would be no", we have told our interlocutor what we would answer, if the question were put. Our interlocutor saves face; and we ourselves avoid a direct refusal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrP
Click to expand...



But in 1,. the question has already been asked:

<1. "...I do have some answers for you. You asked about one person declaring all the income and one taking all the expense. The answer to that would be no.">


----------



## cuchuflete

I see it in EN, and hear it in SP...some of the Romance languages use the conditional precisely this way...to express probability. As to whether it is 'standard' or not, it's certainy not rare in spoken English, so I suppose that ought to count for something.


----------



## Sabelotodo

river said:
			
		

> But, that would be me.


 
Should that be, "That would be I"? 

 Sorry, I couldn't help myself.  That _would be_ me, opening up a whole new "can of worms."


----------



## cuchuflete

Sabelotodo said:
			
		

> Should that be, "That would be I"?
> 
> Sorry, I couldn't help myself.  That _would be_ me, opening up a whole new "can of worms."



That would be appropriate for an entirely new thread.


----------



## M56

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I see it in EN, and hear it in SP...some of the Romance languages use the conditional precisely this way...to express probability. As to whether is 'standard' or not, it's certainy not rare in spoken English, so I suppose that ought to count for something.


 
Excuse me, what are EN and SP?


----------



## elroy

M56 said:
			
		

> Excuse me, what are EN and SP?


 
EN = English
SP = Spanish

Does no one else think it can be used as a synonym of "is" (to indicate certitude and not probability)? I think it can, both in the police example and in M56's Sentence #2. How can there be any doubt there when the person himself is saying that he is Steve?


----------



## M56

More examples:

1. *Down in Bethlehem one Christmas long ago.*

Sheperd: Psst, there's one wise man missing.

Blacksmith: That would be Balthasar.

Sheperd: How do you know?

Blacksmith: Because that one's Melchior and the other one's Caspar.
.........

2.

What's the square root of 625?

That would be 25.

.........

3. 
How many times will Man Utd play Arsenal next year?

That would be 4 times.

4.

Who's your favourite pop star?

That would be Robbie.


----------



## M56

elroy said:
			
		

> EN = English
> SP = Spanish
> 
> Does no one else think it can be used as a synonym of "is" (to indicate certitude and not probability)? I think it can, both in the police example and in M56's Sentence #2. How can there be any doubt there when the person himself is saying that he is Steve?


 
It may help to know that it is labeled as _epistemic would_ (one of the epistemic modals).

"Epistemic modality is a modality that connotes how much certainty or evidence a speaker has for the proposition expressed by his or her utterance."

http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsEpistemicModality.htm

I know that various linguists have said that the use is one of these: tentative; a conditional with a general and suppressed _if_-clause; it expresses prdeictabilty about some past action or state, but those uses don't seem to apply in the examples I've given.


----------



## M56

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I see it in EN, and hear it in SP...some of the Romance languages use the conditional precisely this way...to express probability.


 
But where is the conditional?


----------



## MrPedantic

M56 said:
			
		

> But in 1,. the question has already been asked:
> 
> <1. "...I do have some answers for you. You asked about one person declaring all the income and one taking all the expense. The answer to that would be no.">


 
Fair enough. I can see that "would" here might be epistemic; if epistemic "would" isn't in any case the visible portion of an implicit conditional statement. But it also seems susceptible to a different interpretation.

Let's imagine how the whole passage would sound if the answerer said "the answer to that is no".

To my ears, it's "less deferential". 

Now let's imagine that my ears are not uniquely deformed. In that case, there must be a reason for the additional deference in the "would" version. (Cf. the still more deferential "that would have to be no" – introducing the note of "external compulsion".)

Where does that additional deference reside? 

Perhaps in the implicit IF statement (my second attempt): "if I were to reply to that question, the answer would be no". In this way the speaker distances himself from his reply, and thus shows deference.

In other words, "the answer is no" is direct: "the answer would be no" is oblique.

MrP


----------



## M56

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> In other words, "the answer is no" is direct: "the answer would be no" is oblique.
> 
> MrP


 
Interesting. I've been getting feedback that falls more on the side of "certitude on behalf of the speaker".


----------



## MrPedantic

Yes; it was intended as a non-epistemic version. 

I'm not sure how the certitude can be on _behalf_ of the speaker, though. Doesn't that require another agent?

MrP


----------



## M56

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> Yes; it was intended as a non-epistemic version.
> 
> I'm not sure how the certitude can be on _behalf_ of the speaker, though. Doesn't that require another agent?
> 
> MrP


 
Coming from Palmer, conventionally _epistemic would_ shows that the speaker feels he/she has conclusive objective evidence for the truth of a proposition coded in the utterance. This would rule out things like wild guessing, decisions and predictions.


----------



## MrPedantic

I don't altogether agree with "conclusive". It seems to me that "epistemic would" suggests "would turn out to be...", e.g. 

1. "Who's that asking all those questions about epistemic 'would' again?" "Oh, that would (turn out to) be M56."

where "turn out to be" implies "if we were to take the trouble to look into the matter"; or "as will become apparent at some later stage". The "would" in this usage seems (to my ears, anyway) to have an air of "expectation of _future_ conclusive knowledge".

We probably have to subtract the "ironic" use of "epistemic would" from the account, which James has characterized as "humorous". Here, the use of the less conclusive form ("would") instead of "is" conveys ironic understatement ("as if there could be any doubt about it!"; or "I am presenting this fact as tentative, even though it is blindingly obvious"), e.g.

2. "Seven cans of oil at five dollars each...so that's, um, how much?" "That would be 35 dollars..."

MrP


----------



## M56

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> I don't altogether agree with "conclusive". It seems to me that "epistemic would" suggests "would turn out to be...", e.g.
> 
> 1. "Who's that asking all those questions about epistemic 'would' again?" "Oh, that would (turn out to) be M56."
> 
> 
> MrP


 
<"Oh, that would (turn out to) be M56.">

But what would that statement be based on? How could the speaker identify the questioner as M56?


----------



## M56

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> where "turn out to be" implies "if we were to take the trouble to look into the matter"; or "as will become apparent at some later stage". The "would" in this usage seems (to my ears, anyway) to have an air of "expectation of _future_ conclusive knowledge".
> 
> MrP


 
Where is the futurity in:

_Are you Mr Pedantic?_

_Yes, that would be me._


----------



## foxfirebrand

Lots of good stuff here on a very subtle (but very common) usage-- and it has to do with that most elusive of linguistic considerations, _tone._ 

The DI shouts "left!" and the recruit steps off on his right foot.  Action is halted for everyone while the DI approaches the hapless klutz, who is trembling, bracing for a high-decibel excoriation.

Instead the DI says softly, in almost kindly tones.  "That would be your _other_ left foot."

The tone in these constructions is mildly ironic, with the above example being more intensely sarcastic (and dramatic) than average.  It's the irony of understatement.

And that points to the issue of certainty "on behalf of the speaker" as M56 put it.  Yes, the speaker is underplaying his high degree of confidence in the correctness of his answer, presenting it as guesswork.  The attitude conveyed can range from simple self-deprecation to a submerged sarcasm about the need to ask a question with such an obvious answer.

A fierce pounding at the door, worse than a squad of cops giving their perfunctory split-second warning before crashing in.  Your girlfriend disentangles herself and regards your shocked bafflement with a sneer.

She stays your hand as you reach for the dope in a panic, obviously hoping you can flush it in time.  "That would be your wife at the door, wanting a word with you," she says dryly.
.

.


----------



## MrPedantic

M56 said:
			
		

> <"Oh, that would (turn out to) be M56.">
> 
> But what would that statement be based on? How could the speaker identify the questioner as M56?


 
Try this:

MrA: "Hey, look at this, MrP. Who do you think this Anonymous poster is? Look, there he goes again. He keeps on asking all these questions about epistemic 'would'." 

MrP: "Here, let me see. Hmm....Oh yes, that would be M56. I've seen him over at WordRef Forums too."

The identification is based on stylistic analysis. But it's not "conclusive" (how can we know who an anonymous poster is?). 

MrP


----------



## MrPedantic

M56 said:
			
		

> _Are you Mr Pedantic?_
> 
> _Yes, that would be me._


 
Ironic doubt. 

MrP


----------



## M56

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> Try this:
> 
> 
> MrP: "Here, let me see. Hmm....Oh yes, that would be M56. I've seen him over at WordRef Forums too."
> 
> The identification is based on stylistic analysis. But it's not "conclusive" (how can we know who an anonymous poster is?).
> 
> MrP


 
It may be conclusive in the mind of the speaker. 

"*I've seen him* over at WordRef and so *I know* it is him."


----------



## M56

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> Ironic doubt.
> 
> MrP


 
Not at all.

*Phone rings:*

Voice: Could I speak to Mr P, please?

Mr P: This is he.

Ironic emphasis?


----------



## MrPedantic

M56 said:
			
		

> It may be conclusive in the mind of the speaker.
> 
> "*I've seen him* over at WordRef and so *I know* it is him."


 
Now you've changed it: "I know it *is* him".

The significant point in the dialogue is that the speaker doesn't say "That _is_ M56": he says "that _would be_ M56".

Are you saying that "would be" indicates more certainty than "is"?

MrP


----------



## M56

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> Now you've changed it: "I know it *is* him".
> 
> The significant point in the dialogue is that the speaker doesn't say "That _is_ M56": he says "that _would be_ M56".
> 
> Are you saying that "would be" indicates more certainty than "is"?
> 
> MrP


 
Mr P...

More, no.

I see absolutely no difference (along with no inherent: irony, tentativity, guesswork, conditionality, or futurity) between these two:

Who's the president of Spain, sir?

That would be Zapatero.

............

What's 300 divided by 7, Dad?

That would be... 42.8571429, son.

*To me, the respondent in each case is 100% sure of his statement.*


----------



## MrPedantic

This usage has several flavours ("tones"), as has been mentioned.

I would class those two examples as "deferential", for example (see my first post on this subject). 

At this point you might say: why should a father be "deferential" to his son?

To which I would reply: in a grammatical context, "deference" doesn't mean "kowtowing". Rather, it means the variety of "polite" forms (e.g. the past tense in "I was wondering whether...) we use when we want to be tactful, non-aggressive, non-overbearing, not-unduly-confident, etc. Or when we impart knowledge, in a modest way, to strangers or children. 

So the form can hardly suggest "certitude": we are going out of our way _not_ to seem over-certain, however sure we are of our facts. That's why we use this kind of "would".

In short, what is relevant is not the degree of certitude the speaker may have, privately, but the degree of certitude he wants to _present_, publicly:

1. That's Zapatero. ] confident assertion.

2. That would be Zapatero. ] tentative, deferential assertion.

MrP


----------



## M56

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> MrP


 



> To which I would reply: in a grammatical context, "deference" doesn't mean "kowtowing". Rather, it means the variety of "polite" forms (e.g. the past tense in "I was wondering whether...) we use when we want to be tactful, non-aggressive, non-overbearing, not-unduly-confident, etc. Or when we impart knowledge, in a modest way, to strangers or children.
> 
> So the form can hardly suggest "certitude": we are going out of our way _not_ to seem over-certain, however sure we are of our facts. That's why we use this kind of "would".


 
To me, you're just making guesses and imposing tones upon the construction. There *is* absolutely no explicit reason for the father to be deferential to his son. Not whatsoever. He may choose to be so, but being so is not is not the defining characteristic of "that would be". 

The certitude that resides in "that would be" is the certitude of the speaker. The speaker uses an evidential form to assess the truth of the proposition (fact). As he assesses, he takes a stance and the conclusion stance is certainty based on evidence available or logical deduction. He _advertises_ his stance through the use of "that would be". He stands between the (objectively) factual proposition and weaker stances. In all uses of epistemic modality, the speakers says "my current belief is...".

_(In my view) that would be M56._ (Modal stance, with a conclusion of certainty) 

There, the speaker's certainty as to the truth of the implied proposition ("that is M56) is in no way diminished or otherwise affected (in his eyes)by his addition of a stance marker like "in my view". One can choose not to believe him, but he still feels certain that his utterance supports the truth.

_That is M56._ (factual proposition. No modal stance.)


----------



## foxfirebrand

M56 said:
			
		

> _That would be M56._ (stance, with a conclusion of certainty)
> 
> _That is M56._ (factual proposition. No stance.)


That would depend, of course, on what the meaning of _is_ would be.  One would think you still lived in the prepostmodern world of intact epistemological constructs.  No stance indeed-- to posit an absence of stance _is_ a stance, and an arguably naive one.  Has your variant no accommodation for linguistic nuance?
.


----------



## M56

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> That would depend, of course, on what the meaning of _is_ would be. One would think you still lived in the prepostmodern world of intact epistemological constructs. No stance indeed-- to posit an absence of stance _is_ a stance, and an arguably naive one. Has your variant no accommodation for linguistic nuance?
> .


 
Yes, I agree that even propositions can show stance, but we are looking at *modal stance* here.


----------



## MrPedantic

<The certitude that resides in "that would be" is the certitude of the speaker.>

The certitude that resides in "that would be" is the certitude the speaker _wants to present_. 

<There is absolutely no explicit reason for the father to be deferential to his son. Not whatsoever. He may choose to be so, but being so is not is not the defining characteristic of "that would be".>

When you impart knowledge to other people (including children), you can choose to do so in a "deferential" manner. The choice of a deferential manner does not necessarily imply deference towards the addressee. It can also imply modesty; the desire not to seem too sure of oneself; the desire not to encourage children to adopt a "know-it-all" manner when they in turn impart knowledge to others; etc., etc. This particular "would" structure is one of the forms we choose, in such situations. 

Cf. the difference in strength between these two denials: "that wasn't me" and "that wouldn't have been me". 

Or take this:

*Dialogue 1*
"What's the capital of London, Dad?"
"That would be England, son."

and this:

*Dialogue 2*
"What's the capital of London, Dad?"
"That's England, son."

According to your analysis, how would we distinguish between the two? 

To make it easier, let's imagine two different contexts:

A The father is Homer Simpson.
B The father is DrP, international authority on matters geographical.

Here is my interpretation; though no doubt there are other possibilities. Let A1 = Homer Simpson, dialogue #1, and so forth.

A1 Homer uses the time-honoured "deferential" method of imparting information. Like many fathers, he has learnt how little he knows about the subjects his son asks about; in fact, he has sometimes discovered that his son knows more than he does, and has come to fear the supplementary query that explodes his first response. He therefore adopts a "cautious" tone: "that would be England". The information is made "remote" by the "would": he has distanced himself from it. (In effect, "that would be..." here leaves room for manoeuvre.)

A2 Homer answers the question with his customary airy nonchalance. He exudes breezy self-confidence: it is his part to know, and his son's to learn. (Bart was of course much younger then.) 

B1 DrP parodies the time-honoured deferential method, etc., etc., while presenting information he knows is incorrect. 

(Compare: "That would be London", in response to "What's the capital of England?", where DrP simply parodies the time-honoured etc., etc. The humour then lies in "being tentative when no one would doubt your perfect right to speak with utter certitude".)

B2 DrP's humour is here more straightforward: he simply falls in with a premise which he knows to be wrong.

Let me add another variant: Homer has no idea what the capital of London might be. So he "guesses wildly", in a tone of utter confidence: "The capital of London, son? That would be England." 

How do you read this, in terms of your analysis?

MrP


----------



## James Stephens

We are awash in a sea of grammarians and literalists. Is there no one who sees humor in those exchanges? This construction is practically a mainstay in stand-up comedy and in TV sit-coms. 

You asked me a ridiculous question about taxes. Obviously, the answer is no. Are you an idiot?

A dog got hit by a truck. Obviously, that would be a dead dog. Is it possible that you wouldn't now this? 

The identity question has a slightly different twist. The answer to such a question as stated is obviously, yes. Because the responder chose a circumlocution, he recognized an implication/or wanted to add one to the question. His answer was based on his inference/or his added implication. The inplied question could have been: Are you the naughty neighbor?/the nosy neighbor?/loud neighbor? Context here would help.

These expresssions are almost always preceded by a pause to allow the audience to "catch up" and wait for the punch line that begins, "That would be." 

Am I the only one having any fun? The person bracing for the deluge? That would be me.


----------



## river

You write so well, James. Oh, and yes, I see the humor in "would be."


----------



## MrPedantic

Certainly it's used for humorous effect. But what makes it humorous? 

MrP


----------



## M56

> MrPedantic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <The certitude that resides in "that would be" is the certitude of the speaker.>
> 
> The certitude that resides in "that would be" is the certitude the speaker _wants to present_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet this is the definition of epistemic modality, isn't it?
> 
> 
> *Definition* Epistemic modality is a modality that connotes how much certainty or evidence a speaker has for the proposition expressed by his or her utterance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you impart knowledge to other people (including children), you can choose to do so in a "deferential" manner. The choice of a deferential manner does not necessarily imply deference towards the addressee. It can also imply modesty; the desire not to seem too sure of oneself; the desire not to encourage children to adopt a "know-it-all" manner when they in turn impart knowledge to others; etc., etc. This particular "would" structure is one of the forms we choose, in such situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying, and I agree to a certain extent, but I think you are colouring the basic and characteristic use of "epistemic modality". Discovering what is characteristic about and general throughout all uses of the "that would be" construction is the first task.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dialogue 1
> "What's the capital of London, Dad?"
> "That would be England, son."
> 
> and this:
> 
> Dialogue 2
> "What's the capital of London, Dad?"
> "That's England, son."
> 
> According to your analysis, how would we distinguish between the two?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By understanding that the second one is a categorical proposition with no explicit stance shown by the speaker - no, "in my view and based on all the information I have". The first one contains modal stance and that stance explicitly supports the open proposition "London is the capital of Britain".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A1 Homer uses the time-honoured "deferential" method of imparting information. Like many fathers, he has learnt how little he knows about the subjects his son asks about; in fact, he has sometimes discovered that his son knows more than he does, and has come to fear the supplementary query that explodes his first response. He therefore adopts a "cautious" tone: "that would be England". The information is made "remote" by the "would": he has distanced himself from it. (In effect, "that would be..." here leaves room for manoeuvre.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I understand what you are saying, but I'm still trying to push for the* characteristic* of *all* uses of "that would be" (when epistemic). We get to the General use and then we can go through all the ways that is coloured.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me add another variant: Homer has no idea what the capital of London might be. So he "guesses wildly", in a tone of utter confidence: "The capital of London, son? That would be England."
> 
> How do you read this, in terms of your analysis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say that Homer is using the form in order to fool others, which shows even more that the form "that would be" is _meant to be believed_. Is meant to be understood as contributing to the truth conditions of the open proposition (there false) of "England is the capital of Britain".
> 
> If Homer's information is not seen by the boy as "following" the Gricean maxim of "Do not say what you believe to be false", then it is not the form "that would be" which has allowed the son to see though things - it is other.
> 
> If it were the form in itself which allowed us to see through to the "falsehood" that a speaker may be guilty of then, using your reasoning, we should need to warn people about speakers who use the form. We should be saying "be wary of speakers who use such a form, for they may not be lying through their teeth.
> 
> 
> 
> We simply do not have a form in English that is specifically for lying or giving false information. We have to colour the forms we have in order to do that.
Click to expand...


----------



## MrPedantic

<And yet this is the definition of epistemic modality, isn't it?>
I quite like the glossary on that site; but “certainty…has” isn’t one of their happier formulations. (“I have evidence and certainty”? Is that even English?)

Nitpicking aside, I would modify it thus: “epistemic modality connotes how much certainty or evidence a speaker wants to suggest he has for the proposition, etc.” 

<I think you are colouring the basic and characteristic use of "epistemic modality".>
Well, I have said on several occasions that “deference” is only one aspect of this usage (i.e. I don’t limit it to deference.)

<The first one contains modal stance and that stance explicitly supports the open proposition "London is the capital of Britain".>
If only to placate my Cornish, Welsh and Scottish ancestors, I should point out that London is not the capital of Britain. It’s the capital of England. 

<…the second one is a categorical proposition with no explicit stance shown by the speaker..>
Here I must take a tip from Foxfire: the absence of modality is itself a “stance”. (We are binary little organisms.) Thus in this context, “That’s England” is a confident assertion. Otherwise, how do you account for the fact that we say “but that wasn’t me!” when we want to profess innocence? The absence of colour is itself a colour.

I’m interested to see how you’d explain the same dialogues with DrP in place of Homer, by the way.

(Also, how you would treat the response “That will be England, son”.)

<I'm still trying to push for the characteristic of all uses of "that would be" (when epistemic). We get to the General use and then we can go through all the ways that is coloured.>
What’s wrong with “distancing”? 

<I would say that Homer is using the form in order to fool others, which shows even more that the form "that would be" is meant to be believed.>
“_Meant_ to be believed”: so you do, after all, accept that the form connotes the degree of certitude the speaker wants to present – not the degree he really has?

<…it is not the form "that would be" which has allowed the son to see though things - it is other…If it were the form in itself which allowed us to see through to the "falsehood" that a speaker may be guilty of then…>
Something in my overlong post has misled you here. I haven’t suggested that the son has or hasn’t seen through anything. And I didn’t mean that the form itself could suggest either truth or falsehood on the speaker’s part. (I thought the example I had chosen – the kind of mistake a child makes, and the kind of private humour a father might indulge in – would “force” a certain context; but maybe I wasn’t explicit enough.)

MrP


----------



## foxfirebrand

James Stephens said:
			
		

> Am I the only one having any fun? The person bracing for the deluge? That would be me.


I didn't weigh in on this weighty topic until post #27, but if you'll give it a second look it might diminish your dismay a little.  The one about the drill instructor saying "that would be your _other_ left foot," remember?  And the angry wife banging at the door, where it's the girlfriend and not the husband who recognizes her knock?  I won't make any claims about my other post, #36-- if it didn't work as parody, I've obviously failed in my solemn mission here.  Now I'm the one who's wondering who's having fun.
.


----------



## cuchuflete

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Now I'm the one who's wondering who's having fun.
> .



That would be Homer and me, SIR!


----------



## panjandrum

... and the audience on the bleachers.
It's been a delightful experience.


----------



## M56

> Nitpicking aside, I would modify it thus: “epistemic modality connotes how much certainty or evidence a speaker wants to suggest he has for the proposition, etc.”


 
I've never heard that definition.




> <I think you are colouring the basic and characteristic use of "epistemic modality".>
> Well, I have said on several occasions that “deference” is only one aspect of this usage (i.e. I don’t limit it to deference.)


 
And I'm still on my search for the General use of the form.

N.B. I'm using general in its meaning of "applying to all uses, not some, or even many".




> If only to placate my Cornish, Welsh and Scottish ancestors, I should point out that London is not the capital of Britain. It’s the capital of England.


 
LOL! Nor is "England the capital of London", but your commentator though it was.




> Here I must take a tip from Firefox: the absence of modality is itself a “stance”. (We are binary little organisms.) Thus in this context, “That’s England” is a confident assertion. Otherwise, how do you account for the fact that we say “but that wasn’t me!” when we want to profess innocence? The absence of colour is itself a colour.


 
Yes, and I agreed with Firefox, but I'm talking about modal stance. And, modal stance is a marker. Propositions are generally seen as being unmarked for stance. 

Let's get back to basics. A statement like "The square root of 400 is 20" is publicly available knowledge. The answer to "What is the square root of 400?" could be:

It is 20. (publicly available knowledge)

That would be 20. (indicating strong support of the truth-value of publicly available knowledge)


That must be 20. (shows a private belief)

The same in:

That is one dead dog.

That would be one dead dog. Who could disagree?

That must be one dead dog. (private belief)

Sorry, but that's the way I see it. For me, the general use is to show explicit modal support for the publicly available evidence.




> What’s wrong with “distancing”?


 
Regarding the truth of propositional content, I see no distancing on behalf of the speaker when using "that would be". He may be distancing himself from the doubters though.





> “_Meant_ to be believed”: so you do, after all, accept that the form connotes the degree of certitude the speaker wants to present – not the degree he really has?


 

No, I don't. Homer is aware that he wants to use a form that expresses modal certitude; he exploits/abuses the normal use of the form.
 

It's like saying the use of "I'm really depressed these days" is a form which was created in order to get sympathy when one is not really depressed. That form, in itself, was created in order to inform others of one's true mental state. If a speaker wants to exploit that use for other ends, the form itself is _not to blame_. Using the form to get sympathy is not the General use of the form, only a colouring of it.


----------



## foxfirebrand

Let's not leave out the phrase "that would _have_ to be."

A 480-pound woman is crying to her enabler about amatory problems.  Bemoaning the callous behavior of her swain, she sighs-- "I dunno, that man has really got me out on a limb."

An interloper in the next booth lets out an aside, audible to all who are listening in on this, treating it as comedy.  "That would have to be _some_ limb!"

Or one hell of a limb-- not to explain the joke, but it's sturdy enough to support the bulk and heft of the complainer.  Only a very cruel heckler indeed would add, "want me to lend you some _rope?_"
.


----------



## M56

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Let's not leave out the phrase "that would _have_ to be."
> 
> A 480-pound woman is crying to her enabler about amatory problems. Bemoaning the callous behavior of her swain, she sighs-- "I dunno, that man has really got me out on a limb."
> 
> An interloper in the next booth lets out an aside, audible to all who are listening in on this, treating it as comedy. "That would have to be _some_ limb!"
> 
> 
> .


 
"That would be _some_ limb!" (100% certitude)


"That would have to be _some_ limb!" (less certitude)


----------



## M56

Is there a difference in speaker commitment to the truth in the two answers below?

Who's the girl with dark hair?

That would be Stella's sister/That is Stella's sister, I conclude.

And to summarise my thinking on "that would be" (epistemic use), I offer this:

The use of "that would be" strengthens, and not does not weaken truth-conditional content.


The use of other most other epistemic modals, such as "must", possibly does weaken truth-conditional content.


----------



## foxfirebrand

M56 said:
			
		

> "That would be _some_ limb!" (100% certitude)
> 
> 
> "That would have to be _some_ limb!" (less certitude)


 Uhhh...no.  It's more like, "good luck finding a limb like _that._"  I hate to explain jokes, but this one has to do with the device of the deadpan acceptance of a figurative statement _as literal._ 

Definitions about real limbs go out the window in ironic exchanges like this-- one person is talking past another. Or shouting out the window at the other, who is down on the lawn rummaging for those jettisoned definitions.
.


----------



## M56

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Uhhh...no. It's more like, "good luck finding a limb like _that._" I hate to explain jokes, but this one has to do with the device of the deadpan acceptance of a figurative statement _as literal._
> 
> .


 
Yes, and a good one too.


----------



## MrPedantic

<I've never heard that definition.>

So...if you had heard it before...it would be truer?

<LOL! Nor is "England the capital of London", but your commentator though it was.>

Um...that was the point of the dialogue...as you'd know if you'd read my last post...

[smiting-own-brow emoticon]

<Propositions are generally seen as being unmarked for stance.>

If you agreed with Foxfire, you would also necessarily agree that "being unmarked for stance is itself a stance".

<That would be 20. (indicating strong support of the truth-value of publicly available knowledge)>

If you ask me "what is the square root of 400", and I say "that would be 20", I'm not expressing strong support for anything. What would be the point of expressing "strong support" for a square root?

In fact, I'm being "humorous": I'm treating as "uncertain knowledge" something which is by its nature "certain". Not a very good joke, I know; but as James has mentioned, a staple of the tv sitcom.

Let's try it. I'll say "what is the square root of 400?" And you answer: "that would be 20". 

Go on. [interlude]

Now, did you feel you were expressing "strong support" for anything? Or did you find yourself looking a little humorous round the eyes, and pursing your lips, and maybe nodding your head slowly and sagely, in an American-stand-up-comedian kind of way?

(No? Well, I think you did, M56.)

MrP


----------



## MrPedantic

M56 said:
			
		

> The use of "that would be" strengthens, and not does not weaken truth-conditional content.


 
*Dialogue 1*
"MrP, if I were to put it to you that you have quite wilfully misrepresented the underlying sense of epistemic 'would', what would you have to say for yourself?"
"That would be an outrageous slur, your honour."

*Dialogue 2*
"MrP, I put it to you that you have quite wilfully misrepresented the underlying sense of epistemic 'would'. Now, what have you got to say for yourself?"
"That is an outrageous slur, your honour."

Which is the more forceful response? 

MrP


----------



## MrPedantic

M56 said:
			
		

> "That would be _some_ limb!" (100% certitude)
> 
> 
> "That would have to be _some_ limb!" (less certitude)


 
"(If he _did_ have you out on a limb,) that would have to be some limb!"

Implicit type 2 conditional, maybe...

MrP


----------



## foxfirebrand

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> *Dialogue 1*
> "MrP, if I were to put it to you that you have quite wilfully misrepresented the underlying sense of epistemic 'would', what would you have to say for yourself?"
> "That would be an outrageous slur, your honour."


If I can cut through the epistemic niceties for a moment-- why are you throwing a simple if/then construction in here?

"That would be" in the sense we're examining it here, is one topic.  Not every instance of those three words in sequence is on-topic-- except maybe by Herr Doktor Professor Gugel's standards.  

The "if it were this, then it would be that" construction is a commonplace sentence using "would" in the conditional, the way it's used 99+% of the time.  Is it possible the original topic has been exhausted?  Enervated, sapped, drained of its vital fluids?  Ashes to ashes, already.
.


----------



## MrPedantic

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> If I can cut through the epistemic niceties for a moment-- why are you throwing a simple if/then construction in here?


 
Fair question; but I'd rather wait till M56 answers my question, before answering yours (if that's ok).

On a related subject, it interests me that some (though not all) of these sentences can be painlessly rephrased as rumps of "type 2" conditionals. To return to the first post, for instance, we have:

1. (If you were to ask me that,) the answer would be no."

And the "limb" example (in my previous post) seems to be another candidate.

Either a few simple if/then constructions have somehow found their way into our epistemic discussion; or there's a connection between the conditional and epistemic usages.

MrP


----------



## M56

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> <Propositions are generally seen as being unmarked for stance.>
> 
> If you agreed with Foxfire, you would also necessarily agree that "being unmarked for stance is itself a stance".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if I say that the present simple is unmarked for tense, you will say that it is marked., right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you ask me "what is the square root of 400", and I say "that would be 20", I'm not expressing strong support for anything. What would be the point of expressing "strong support" for a square root?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exam points?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, did you feel you were expressing "strong support" for anything? Or did you find yourself looking a little humorous round the eyes, and pursing your lips, and maybe nodding your head slowly and sagely, in an American-stand-up-comedian kind of way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.
Click to expand...


----------



## M56

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> "(If he _did_ have you out on a limb,) that would have to be some limb!"
> 
> Implicit type 2 conditional, maybe...
> 
> MrP


 
A person tells you that someone had them out on a limb and you doubt her immediately do you? 

Mnay commentators have tried to push all uses of "would" into the conditional slot - I guess it helps make things look neat and tidy - but for me there is a difference between "conditional would" and "epistemic" would.

Also, if you can force the expression into a conditional structure, I can for it even more into a performative structure:


_He had me out on a limb._

_That would have to be some limb, I conclude._



And maybe your comment below can help you see why the forcing of would into _conditional_ sentences, does not always work:



> But certain kinds of epistemic usage seem troublesome; perhaps because indications of factual necessity are incompatible with conditionality:


 
Is the "have to" in "that would have to be" deontic or epistemic in your mind?


----------



## M56

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> On a related subject, it interests me that some (though not all) of these sentences can be painlessly rephrased as rumps of "type 2" conditionals. To return to the first post, for instance, we have:
> 
> 1. (If you were to ask me that,) the answer would be no."
> 
> 
> MrP


 
You are regressing. The questioner in that example has already asked the question - as I said.

MR P dialogue:

Teacher: _You asked me a question about the need for your son to resit the exam. If you asked me that question, the answer would be no._

Mom: _Pardon? I *did *ask you. I hope they don't let you teach English here!_


----------



## MrPedantic

M56 said:
			
		

> A person tells you that someone had them out on a limb and you doubt her immediately do you?


 
You think it was a real limb?

MrP


----------



## M56

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> You think it was a real limb?
> 
> MrP


 
Why should I? 

Why shouldn't you believe her?


----------



## MrPedantic

Here's the passage in question:



> A 480-pound woman is crying to her enabler about amatory problems. Bemoaning the callous behavior of her swain, she sighs-- "I dunno, that man has really got me out on a limb¹."
> 
> An interloper in the next booth lets out an aside, audible to all who are listening in on this, treating it as comedy. "That would have to be _some_ limb²!"


 
Limb¹ is metaphorical.

Limb² is hypothetical.

Neither is "real".

MrP


----------



## M56

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> Here's the passage in question:
> 
> 
> 
> Limb¹ is metaphorical.
> 
> Limb² is hypothetical.
> 
> Neither is "real".
> 
> MrP


 
Not sure of the relevance of that information.


----------



## MrPedantic

That's no problem, M56. I'll explain.

In an earlier post, I suggested that this sentence: 



> "That would have to be _some_ limb!"


 
might be regarded as an "implicit type 2 conditional" – e.g.

1. (If he did have her out on a limb,) that would have to be some limb!

You replied:



> A person tells you that someone had them out on a limb and you doubt her immediately do you?


 
Since the "some limb" joke relates not to the meaning of the woman's statement, but to the metaphor through which that meaning was expressed, there are two possible interpretations of this comment. 

The first is that you believe the "limb" is in some sense real. However, limb¹ only exists as a metaphor, and limb² only exists in a third party's hypothesis. Therefore neither is real.

The second interpretation is that you think that sentence #1 implies "doubt". This is not the case. It simply draws a conclusion, based on the size of the woman.

MrP


----------



## M56

MrPedantic said:
			
		

> That's no problem, M56. I'll explain.
> 
> 
> MrP


 
Well, I read it all and I still think you are trying too hard to unify epistemic _would _with irrealis or conditional _would_. Again I suggest that there is nothing tentative, predictable or conditional about Sam's er below.

Jake: Hey, look, the goldfish is lying on the bottom of the tank. Maybe it's ill.
Dan: Looks dead to me.
Sam: That would be one dead goldfish, Jake.


----------



## MrPedantic

There are degrees of _irrealis._ Not every type 2 conditional implies doubt on the speaker's part as to the truth of the hypothesis, or an assumption that the hypothesis is improbable.

Two obvious contexts are "advice" and "planning":

Ex. 1 – in the petrol station

"...But if you were to take the M56, you'd get there much quicker."

Ex. 2 – on the bridge

"Gentlemen, I find these latest reports very disturbing indeed. What if Gamma Lyrae were to implode, before we reached Beta Cygni?" 
"If that were to happen, we would have to refuel at M56."
"I must protest, O my capitaine. On no account should we refuel at M56. The natives are most unfriendly..."

MrP


----------

