# would have been married



## raymondaliasapollyon

Hi,

Is "would" properly used in the following?

A: John and Sarah have been married for a long time. I don't know exactly how long, but they *would *have been married for 40 years by this June.

I'd appreciate your help.


----------



## Uncle Jack

I expect you need "will". The present perfect "have been married" implies they are both still alive, so you need the future perfect. "Would" implies they won't actually have been married for 40 years. 

Is there a particular reason for using "by"? It seems unnecessary.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

How about the following?

A: Where's John now?
B: I'm not sure. He *would *be at home now.

A: When will John come back?
B: I'm not sure. He *would *be back by seven. / He *would *have come back by seven.


----------



## Uncle Jack

"Would" in the first conversation sounds a little odd, but involves some sort of inference, not knowledge. "Would" makes no sense in the second conversation, that I can see.

In your original post, it makes no sense to be so precise about how long they will have been married at a particular time in the future unless you actually know this.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

I'm thinking about Merriam-Webster's definition:

9: COULD 
_the barrel *would* hold 20 gallons_

10: used in auxiliary function to express doubt or uncertainty 
_the explanation … *would* seem satisfactory_

Definition of WOULD


----------



## elroy

None of your examples make sense to me.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

The American Heritage Dictionary has similar definitions:


*6. *Used to express presumption or expectation: _That would be Steve at the door._
*7. *Used to indicate uncertainty: _He would seem to be getting better._


----------



## elroy

None of _your_ examples make sense to me.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Do you know what separeates the natural examples from the unnatural ones?


----------



## Cagey

I think this thread will help: <would>/<will> have been married come this June
It's one of the thread that the system has linked to below this thread. 

Not all of them are useful, but it is worth while to look them over to see whether any of them are relevant to your question.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

I've seen that thread, but that's about the conditional use of "would."

It's different from the sense I'm exploring here.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

I've seen the following use of "would," which seems to display the sense in question:

_There were a king with a large jaw and a queen with a plain face, on the throne of England; there were a king with a large jaw and a queen with a fair face, on the throne of France_: The kings and queens referred to are George III (1738-1820) and Queen Charlotte Sophia (1744-1818) of England, and Louis XVI (1754-1793) of France and his consort Marie-Antoinette (1755-1793), who was famous for her beauty. Dickens *would* have known of the English king’s “large jaw” from imprints on coins of his childhood; he *would *have seen Marie-Antoinette’s waxwork likeness at Madame Tussaud’s exhibition in London.


----------



## Uncle Jack

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Dickens *would* have known of the English king’s “large jaw” from imprints on coins of his childhood; he *would *have seen Marie-Antoinette’s waxwork likeness at Madame Tussaud’s exhibition in London.


This is ordinary English, using "would" + perfect infinitive to describe something in the past that can be inferred rather than known for certain. I don't see how you could use "would" + plain infinitive for a similar inference about the present or future.


----------



## se16teddy

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Is "would" properly used in the following?


No, because there is not sufficient context to guess what sense of "would" is meant. It is just confusing.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Uncle Jack said:


> This is ordinary English, using "would" + perfect infinitive to describe something in the past that can be inferred rather than known for certain. I don't see how you could use "would" + plain infinitive for a similar inference about the present or future.



How about American Heritage's example, "That would be Steve at the door"?

A: Who's knocking on the door?
B: That would be Steve.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

se16teddy said:


> No, because there is not sufficient context to guess what sense of "would" is meant. It is just confusing.



If it is "confusing" because it's ambiguous given the multiple possibilities allowed by the definitions of "would," it would show that the use is correct but it could lead to confusion.

But is the use correct in the first place? If not, what distinguishes the correct use of the sense from the incorrect use?


----------



## Uncle Jack

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> How about American Heritage's example, "That would be Steve at the door"?
> 
> A: Who's knocking on the door?
> B: That would be Steve.


It is not something I would say myself, but it sounds like the sort of thing I might use "will" for; a prediction based on expectation. B is expecting Steve to call, so when someone knocks at the door, this is who they think it is. I don't see what this has got to do with the Dickens example.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> But is the use correct in the first place? If not, what distinguishes the correct use of the sense from the incorrect use?


This seems to be the wrong approach, fixating on a word and trying to work out how it is used. It is better to begin with a situation, and working out what words should be used in that situation.

Alternatively, you might start with an existing (correct) sentence used in a particular situation (such as the Dickens example in post #12), and then ask that if the situation changed in this way or that way, could some part of the sentence, such as a particular word or construction, still be used.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Uncle Jack said:


> It is not something I would say myself, but it sounds like the sort of thing I might use "will" for; a prediction based on expectation. B is expecting Steve to call, so when someone knocks at the door, this is who they think it is. I don't see what this has got to do with the Dickens example.



"will" and "would" both belong to the family of epistemic modals; the difference merely lies in the strength of belief they reflect.
There's a hierarchy for them: must > will > would > may / can (mostly in interrogatives and negatives) / might / could.

Maybe your dialect allows "would" in this sense to be used in a more limited range. Consider the following examples:

*DONTZIG*
_(waves a magazine) _Stewart, someone shoved your magazines through my mail slot!

*ROBBY*
_(taking the magazine) _Hmm, I'm guessing that would be the mailman!

1x17 - Torn Between Two Hannahs


. . . one might equally say 'That'll be the postman' or '_That'd be the postman_' while on the way to the letter box.

Victor Dudman's Grammar and Semantics


----------



## Uncle Jack

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> "will" and "would" both belong to the family of epistemic modals; the difference merely lies in the strength of belief they reflect.


In certain situations. In the situation of imagining who is at the door, there seems no scope for any distinction; if the speaker is doubtful about who the person is, they would use a different construction, not change "will" to "would". I agree with Victor Dudman., and I imagine that some speakers use "will" and others use "would"; there being no reason for any speaker to have more than one word for this situation.



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> *DONTZIG*
> _(waves a magazine) _Stewart, someone shoved your magazines through my mail slot!
> 
> *ROBBY*
> _(taking the magazine) _Hmm, I'm guessing that would be the mailman!
> 
> 1x17 - Torn Between Two Hannahs


This is a different use, and Robby is being sarcastic. He is in no doubt that it was the mailman who put the magazines through Dontzig's mail slot, but expresses it as if there is a great deal of uncertainty, by using "hmm" (as if he's thinking about it), "guessing" and "would".


----------



## kentix

Yes, it's hardly a guess.   Any alternative explanation would require a conspiracy theory.



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> A: Where's John now?
> B: I'm not sure. He *would *be at home now.


As soon as you say, "I'm not sure", you can no longer use "would". "Would be" represents a level of certainty or probability beyond what's justifiable after saying "I'm not sure."

Your options are things like, "He might be..." and "He could be..." and "Maybe he is..."



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> A: When will John come back?
> B: I'm not sure. He *would *be back by seven. / He *would *have come back by seven.


The same thing. If you are not sure, you don't have enough certainty to use "would".

The only thing you can do is use "would" in a "baseline" comparison.

"Normally, he would be back by seven but because <reason this is not a normal situation>  I'm not sure when he will be back."

Another possibility is something like:

I'm not sure. He should be back by seven if things go smoothly but things often don't go smoothly. In that case, there is no telling what time he'll be back.

Even if things go smoothly, she can't guarantee he will be back at seven. He might stop somewhere on the way back, for instance. She has no control over that.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Uncle Jack said:


> In certain situations. In the situation of imagining who is at the door, there seems no scope for any distinction; if the speaker is doubtful about who the person is, they would use a different construction, not change "will" to "would". I agree with Victor Dudman., and I imagine that some speakers use "will" and others use "would"; there being no reason for any speaker to have more than one word for this situation.



Now you acknowledge that "would" can be used to make a statement about a present situation based on expectation?
If so, the examples which you reject could be improved without removing "would" per se.
If "I'm not sure" is removed instead, would they sound any better?

Re whether there is a difference between "will" and "would," I found the following comment:

_"Will" implies certainty, while "would" implies a possibility.

"That will be the postman" tells the listener that you're certain the postman is there. Combined with the future tense, this makes little sense, as there is no guarantee that you can predict the future.

"That would be the postman" tells the listener that you're believing the postman is there. Combined with the future tense, this makes perfect sense, as there is no guarantee that you can predict the future._

that will be / would be the postman




Uncle Jack said:


> This is a different use, and Robby is being sarcastic. He is in no doubt that it was the mailman who put the magazines through Dontzig's mail slot, but expresses it as if there is a great deal of uncertainty, by using "hmm" (as if he's thinking about it), "guessing" and "would".



If it is an example of sarcasm, the literal meaning is the opposite of the intended (sarcastic) one.  If Robby demonstrates the sarcasm by expressing it as if it involves a great deal of uncertainty, isn't "would" a device of indicating uncertainty, literally speaking?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

kentix said:


> Yes, it's hardly a guess.   Any alternative explanation would require a conspiracy theory.
> 
> 
> As soon as you say, "I'm not sure", you can no longer use "would". "Would be" represents a level of certainty or probability beyond what's justifiable after saying "I'm not sure."
> 
> Your options are things like, "He might be..." and "He could be..." and "Maybe he is..."
> 
> 
> The same thing. If you are not sure, you don't have enough certainty to use "would".
> 
> The only thing you can do is use "would" in a "baseline" comparison.
> 
> "Normally, he would be back by seven but because <reason this is not a normal situation>  I'm not sure when he will be back."
> 
> Another possibility is something like:
> 
> I'm not sure. He should be back by seven if things go smoothly but things often don't go smoothly. In that case, there is no telling what time he'll be back.
> 
> Even if things go smoothly, she can't guarantee he will be back at seven. He might stop somewhere on the way back, for instance. She has no control over that.



If "I'm not sure" is removed, could "would" work in the previous examples?

Actually, I'm a bit confused, as someone said "would" indicates a possibiity; in other words, at most it indicates somehing is probable or likely, but not certain. If something is merely likely or probable, it should be compatible with "I'm not sure."


----------



## Uncle Jack

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Re whether there is a difference between "will" and "would," I found the following comment:
> 
> _"Will" implies certainty, while "would" implies a possibility.
> 
> "That will be the postman" tells the listener that you're certain the postman is there. Combined with the future tense, this makes little sense, as there is no guarantee that you can predict the future._


This is quite simply wrong - or at least it is where I live, and I have not seen anything to support this assertion _in this situation_. There is no certainty. This particular use of "will"/"would" refers to expectation, and does not involve any thought. If thought is involved, and the speaker reasons that the only person it could be is the postman, then they will use "must". If the person isn't sure, then they would use something else, such as "might",  "could" or "perhaps".

In other situations the choice between "will" and "would" may well reflect a degree of uncertainty, but not here.. "Would" has different meanings in different situations, and it is far more common for it to indicate certainty than it is for it to express doubt, In type 2 and type3 conditionals, for example, it indicates certainty within a hypothetical situation.

However, what I cannot work out from this thread is what use of "would" you want to discuss. The examples appear to be all over the place.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Uncle Jack said:


> This is quite simply wrong - or at least it is where I live, and I have not seen anything to support this assertion _in this situation_. There is no certainty. This particular use of "will"/"would" refers to expectation, and does not involve any thought. If thought is involved, and the speaker reasons that the only person it could be is the postman, then they will use "must". If the person isn't sure, then they would use something else, such as "might",  "could" or "perhaps".



By "certainty," I think he means the speaker's relatively full commitment to the truth of something. What do you think "will" and "would" mean in the postman scenario and how do they differ from "must," "could," etc.? I don't know how we could separate thought from expectation.



Uncle Jack said:


> However, what I cannot work out from this thread is what use of "would" you want to discuss. The examples appear to be all over the place.




How about the following?

A: Where's John now?
B:  He *would *be at home now.

A: When will John come back?
B: He *would *be back by seven. / He *would *have come back by seven.


----------



## Uncle Jack

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> How about the following?
> 
> A: Where's John now?
> B: He *would *be at home now.
> 
> A: When will John come back?
> B: He *would *be back by seven. / He *would *have come back by seven.


I answered this in post #4. The first seems an unlikely thing to say, and the second does not make any sense.


----------



## kentix

Pick a day as an example, like Sunday.

A: Where's John now?

You know exactly where he is as a fact because you talked to him there.

B1: He *is* at home now.

You know the schedule he follows on Sundays and that he never deviates from that schedule.

B2: He *will be *be at home now, getting ready for church.

You know the schedule he follows but you know that he occasionally deviates from that schedule.

B3a: He *would normally be *be at home now, getting ready for church.
B3b: He *is probably* at home now, getting ready for church.
B3c: He *is most likely* at home now, getting ready for church.

You know the schedule he follows but you know that he occasionally deviates from that schedule and today might be one of those days.

B4: He *would normally be *be at home now, getting ready for church, but he might not be there today.

You know the schedule he follows but you know that he occasionally deviates from that schedule and you are fairly certain today is one of those days.

B5: He *would normally be *be at home now, getting ready for church, but he's probably not there today.

You know the schedule he follows but you know that he occasionally deviates from that schedule and you know for certain that today is one of those days. You know for certain where he is.

B6a: He *would normally be *be at home now, getting ready for church, but he's not there today. He's in Shelbyville helping his mother.
B6b: *He's in* Shelbyville helping his mother.

You know the schedule he follows but you know that he occasionally deviates from that schedule and you know for certain that today is one of those days. You are fairly certain you know where he is.

B7a: He *would normally be *be at home now, getting ready for church, but he's not there today. I'm pretty sure he's in Shelbyville helping his mother.
B7b: I'm pretty sure *he's in* Shelbyville helping his mother.

You know the schedule he follows but you know that he occasionally deviates from that schedule and you know for certain that today is one of those days. You don't know for certain where he is.

B8a: He *would normally be *be at home now, getting ready for church, but he's not there today. I think he might be in Shelbyville helping his mother.
B8b: I'm not sure. He *might be* in Shelbyville helping his mother.

You know the schedule he follows but you know that he occasionally deviates from that schedule and you know for certain that today is one of those days. You don't know where he is.

B9: He *would normally be *be at home now, getting ready for church, but he's not there today. I don't know where he went, though.

You don't know the schedule he follows but you happen to know where he is. (Same as B1 above.)

B10a: *He's *at home.
B10b: *He's in* Shelbyville helping his mother.

You don't know the schedule he follows but you have direct information from him.

B11: He told me yesterday that he was *going to be in* Shelbyville today. (He may or may not have followed those plans.)

You don't know the schedule he follows but can deduce where he probably is from something you know.

B12a: Jack told me that he said he was *going to be in* Shelbyville today. (He may or may not have followed those plans.)
B12b: He *is probably* in Shelbyville.

You don't know the schedule he follows but can guess where he probably is from something you know.

B13a: His mother's birthday is today so *he is probably in* Shelbyville celebrating with her. (He does that every year.)
B13b: *He is probably* in Shelbyville.

You don't know the schedule he follows but can deduce where he might be from something you know.

B14a: He told me yesterday that if he had time *he might go* to Shelbyville today. (He may or may not have gone.)
B14b: I'm not sure. *He might be* in Shelbyville.

You don't know the schedule he follows but you know he is out of town. You can guess where he might be because you know he often goes to Shelbyville.

B15a: I know he's out of town but I don't know where. *He might be* in Shelbyville.
B15b: I'm not sure. *He might be* in Shelbyville.

You don't know the schedule he follows and you don't know where he is but you know he didn't leave town.

B16a: I know *he's* in town but I don't know where.
B16b: I'm not sure. But I know *he is* somewhere in town.

You don't know the schedule he follows and you have no information about him to make a deduction or even a guess.

B17: I have no idea where he is.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Uncle Jack said:


> I answered this in post #4. The first seems an unlikely thing to say, and the second does not make any sense.



Thank you. How about the following revisions? (Note that I've put "I'm not sure" back into the sentences.)

A: Where's John now?
B: I'm not sure. He *is likely to be* at home now.

A: When will John come back?
B: I'm not sure. He* is likely to be* back by seven. / He *is likely to have come* back by seven.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

kentix said:


> Pick a day as an example, like Sunday.
> 
> A: Where's John now?
> 
> You know exactly where he is as a fact because you talked to him there.
> 
> B1: He *is* at home now.
> 
> You know the schedule he follows on Sundays and that he never deviates from that schedule.
> 
> B2: He *will be *be at home now, getting ready for church.
> 
> You know the schedule he follows but you know that he occasionally deviates from that schedule.
> 
> B3a: He *would normally be *be at home now, getting ready for church.
> B3b: He *is probably* at home now, getting ready for church.
> B3c: He *is most likely* at home now, getting ready for church.
> 
> You know the schedule he follows but you know that he occasionally deviates from that schedule and today might be one of those days.
> 
> B4: He *would normally be *be at home now, getting ready for church, but he might not be there today.
> 
> You know the schedule he follows but you know that he occasionally deviates from that schedule and you are fairly certain today is one of those days.
> 
> B5: He *would normally be *be at home now, getting ready for church, but he's probably not there today.
> 
> You know the schedule he follows but you know that he occasionally deviates from that schedule and you know for certain that today is one of those days. You know for certain where he is.
> 
> B6a: He *would normally be *be at home now, getting ready for church, but he's not there today. He's in Shelbyville helping his mother.
> B6b: *He's in* Shelbyville helping his mother.
> 
> You know the schedule he follows but you know that he occasionally deviates from that schedule and you know for certain that today is one of those days. You are fairly certain you know where he is.
> 
> B7a: He *would normally be *be at home now, getting ready for church, but he's not there today. I'm pretty sure he's in Shelbyville helping his mother.
> B7b: I'm pretty sure *he's in* Shelbyville helping his mother.
> 
> You know the schedule he follows but you know that he occasionally deviates from that schedule and you know for certain that today is one of those days. You don't know for certain where he is.
> 
> B8a: He *would normally be *be at home now, getting ready for church, but he's not there today. I think he might be in Shelbyville helping his mother.
> B8b: I'm not sure. He *might be* in Shelbyville helping his mother.
> 
> You know the schedule he follows but you know that he occasionally deviates from that schedule and you know for certain that today is one of those days. You don't know where he is.
> 
> B9: He *would normally be *be at home now, getting ready for church, but he's not there today. I don't know where he went, though.
> 
> You don't know the schedule he follows but you happen to know where he is. (Same as B1 above.)
> 
> B10a: *He's *at home.
> B10b: *He's in* Shelbyville helping his mother.
> 
> You don't know the schedule he follows but you have direct information from him.
> 
> B11: He told me yesterday that he was *going to be in* Shelbyville today. (He may or may not have followed those plans.)
> 
> You don't know the schedule he follows but can deduce where he probably is from something you know.
> 
> B12a: Jack told me that he said he was *going to be in* Shelbyville today. (He may or may not have followed those plans.)
> B12b: He *is probably* in Shelbyville.
> 
> You don't know the schedule he follows but can guess where he probably is from something you know.
> 
> B13a: His mother's birthday is today so *he is probably in* Shelbyville celebrating with her. (He does that every year.)
> B13b: *He is probably* in Shelbyville.
> 
> You don't know the schedule he follows but can deduce where he might be from something you know.
> 
> B14a: He told me yesterday that if he had time *he might go* to Shelbyville today. (He may or may not have gone.)
> B14b: I'm not sure. *He might be* in Shelbyville.
> 
> You don't know the schedule he follows but you know he is out of town. You can guess where he might be because you know he often goes to Shelbyville.
> 
> B15a: I know he's out of town but I don't know where. *He might be* in Shelbyville.
> B15b: I'm not sure. *He might be* in Shelbyville.
> 
> You don't know the schedule he follows and you don't know where is but you know he didn't leave town.
> 
> B16a: I know *he's* in town but I don't know where.
> B16b: I'm not sure. But I know *he is* somewhere in town.
> 
> You don't know the schedule he follows and you have no information about him to make a deduction or even a guess.
> 
> B17: I have no idea where he is.




Thank you. In the above examples where "would" is used, what is the relevant sense in the dictionary? I cannot find it.

When I composed the examples in the thread, I had in mind the following definition:

used to refer to what is very likely:

"The guy on the phone had a Southern accent." "That *would *be Tom."

would

But in the examples in post #3, the use of "would" is rejected; this would have been unexpected given the above definition. It seems there are some (murky) constraints on "would" when the sense of "used to refer to what is very likely" in invoked.
Perhaps this sense is not related to the way "would" is used in your examples.


----------



## Uncle Jack

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> A: Where's John now?
> B: I'm not sure. He *is likely to be* at home now.


This is fine.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> A: When will John come back?
> B: I'm not sure. He* is likely to be* back by seven. / He *is likely to have come* back by seven.


The first is possible but unlikely. The question uses the future tense, so the reply will probably also uses the future tense: He will probably be back by seven.
The perfect infinitive does not fit; his coming back is in the future.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Thank you. In the above examples where "would" is used, what is the relevant sense in the dictionary? I cannot find it.


All of kentix' examples that use "would" describe hypothetical situations. The person isn't at home. This is a common use of "would". In dictionaries, this use is generally described as the past tense of "will", since we use the past tense for hypothetical situations in the present and future.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> But in the examples in post #3, the use of "would" is rejected;


Can you not see the examples are completely different? In the dictionary example, a past event is described by one person, and the second person says "that would be Tom" to say that the person with the Southern accent was almost certainly Tom. This is the same use as "That'll be the postman"; it expresses an expectation. Quite likely "would" is used rather than "will" because the action is in the past. This use of "will"/"would" is used for real events that have happened or are taking place. It is not used for events in the future or which are not known to have happened.

All modal verbs depend on context, "would" perhaps more than others, and you cannot simply take a dictionary definition for one context and then try to use the word with the same meaning in a different context.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Uncle Jack said:


> All of kentix' examples that use "would" describe *hypothetical *situations. *The person isn't at home*. This is a common use of "would". In dictionaries, this use is generally described as the past tense of "will", since we use the past tense for hypothetical situations in the present and future.



If the examples, reproduced below, describe hypothetical situations, what is the omitted if-clause? And from what kentix wrote, is it really the case that the person *isn't *at home? It seems that the possibility is left open.

A: Where's John now?
B3a: He *would normally be *be at home now, getting ready for church.
B3b: He *is probably* at home now, getting ready for church.
B3c: He *is most likely* at home now, getting ready for church. 




Uncle Jack said:


> Can you not see the examples are completely different? In the dictionary example, *a past event* is described by one person, and the second person says "that would be Tom" to say that the person with the Southern accent was almost certainly Tom. This is the same use as "That'll be the postman"; it expresses an expectation. Quite likely "would" is used rather than "will" because the action is in the past.



But the use "would" in the relevant sense does not seem to depend on a past event, does it?
Is the following dialogue wrong?

A: Someone *is *behind the door. / Someone *is *knocking on the door.
B: That would be Sam.



Uncle Jack said:


> This use of "will"/"would" is used for real events that have happened or are taking place. It is not used for events in the future or which are not known to have happened.



The example, repeated below, is about events that are taking place. I  have yet to see a consistent explanation to rule it out.

A: Where*'s* John *now*?
B: I'm not sure. He *would *be at home *now*.


----------



## Uncle Jack

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> If the examples, reproduced below, describe hypothetical situations, what is the omitted if-clause?


There isn't one. All a hypothetical situation is one that is not real, or that is outside the reality that you are discussing (where John is now). They are not only found in conditional sentences.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> A: Where's John now?
> B3a: He *would normally be *be at home now, getting ready for church.
> B3b: He *is probably* at home now, getting ready for church.
> B3c: He *is most likely* at home now, getting ready for church.


Sorry, I missed this one. Here "would" indicates doubt.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> But the use "would" in the relevant sense does not seem to depend on a past event, does it?
> Is the following dialogue wrong?
> 
> A: Someone *is *behind the door. / Someone *is *knocking on the door.
> B: That would be Sam.


As I said in my last post.


Uncle Jack said:


> This use of "will"/"would" is used for real events that have happened or are taking place.


I discussed this in posts #17 and #19. I only use "will" in this situation, but it appears other people may use "would". There is no difference in meaning. However, my using "will" in the present means I might use "would" for something that happened in the past, as in the Cambridge dictionary quotation in post #28.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The example, repeated below, is about events that are taking place.


No event is taking place, at least no event that any of the speakers have any knowledge of. What, exactly, is the event in the following dialogue?


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> A: Where*'s* John *now*?
> B: I'm not sure. He *would *be at home *now*.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Uncle Jack said:


> Sorry, I missed this one. Here "would" indicates doubt.



Yes, "would" indicates a level of doubt. In other words, it indicates a level of certainty / uncertainty. That's the sense in question. The question is why it can't work in the following dialogue. Note that the notion of doubt fits "I'm not sure" quite well.

A: Where*'s* John *now*?
B: I'm not sure. He *would *be at home *now*.

Also see this extract from _Longman English Grammar_ by Louis George Alexander:









Uncle Jack said:


> As I said in my last post.
> I discussed this in posts #17 and #19. I only use "will" in this situation, but it appears other people may use "would". There is no difference in meaning. However, my using "will" in the present means I might use "would" for something that happened in the past, as in the Cambridge dictionary quotation in post #28.



The above extract shows the two differ in degrees of certainty / uncertainty. Maybe we need someone who uses both "will" and "would" in this sense in their dialect to verify the claim.




Uncle Jack said:


> No event is taking place, at least no event that any of the speakers have any knowledge of. What, exactly, is the event in the following dialogue?



The notion of "event" is rather vague, I'm afraid. The dialogue could describe, or at least be compatible with, an event where A and B are looking for John.


----------



## kentix

"*The order of models between might and must is not fixed* absolutely."

I could put may, might and could in any order and be happy.

He might be at home.
He may be at home.
He could be at home.

Those sentences are equivalent to me.

But they are not equivalent here.

I could put may, might and could in any order and be happy. 
I might put may, might and could in any order and be happy. 
I may put may, might and could in any order and be happy.


----------



## kentix

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The question is why it can't work in the following dialogue. Note that the notion of doubt fits "I'm not sure" quite well.
> 
> A: Where*'s* John *now*?
> B: I'm not sure. He *would *be at home *now*.


Because you are using would in a way that does not indicate doubt, but rather indicates a conclusion based on evidence (that is not present).

Scenario:
You are with a friend in your house. You are talking. You both hear a thudding sound at the front door. You don't show any reaction. Your friend jumps and looks startled. "What was that? Shouldn't you check on that?" You reply, "No. Don't worry about it. That will/would be the postman. He usually comes around this time."​
You have concluded that it is the postman based on the sound heard and the time of day. You haven't seen him, but you are highly certain it is him. It perfectly matches the previous pattern of his deliveries. If it was a different time of day or the sound was of an axe chopping down your front door, you would not say that.

A: Where*'s* John *now*?
B: I'm not sure. He *would *be at home *now*.

As soon as you say, "I'm not sure" you indicate you don't know where he is. It doesn't mean "I'm not 100% certain." It means, "I don't know enough to give an answer I'm confident about." Anything after that is simply a guess with low confidence, not a conclusion or a statement of direct knowledge.

Guesses with low confidence:
"He might be...", "He may be...", "He could be..."

With higher confidence:
"He's probably..." But that is probably too much confidence after saying "I'm not sure." If you said that, you would omit "I'm not sure".

"I'm not sure. He might be visiting his mother."

"I'm not sure. He's probably visiting his mother."

You have some confidence in that guess.

But those are still guesses.

When you get to would, now you are past guessing and into the area of the postman example where you are making a deduction based on some kind of evidence. There is a certain amount of certainty to that. It's not 100% certainty, but it's much higher than might and could, and even probably.

In your example, you have not provided any evidence why "would" makes sense. In the scenario, the only information available is you don't know where he is. So how can you make a conclusion that requires a significant amount of certainty.

B: I'm not sure. (very uncertain) He *would *be at home *now*. (very certain, but < 100%)

You need to pick one or the other.

Uncertain:
I'm not sure. He might be at home.

Much more certain:
Since it's Sunday morning, he will(/would) be at home getting ready for church.

This is like the mailman example. You have a consistent past pattern and current matching evidence (since it's Sunday) to deduce with high but not absolute certainty that he is at home.

You don't have to say all of it out loud, but that is the basis of what you are saying.

- Since it's Sunday morning, he will(/would) be at home getting ready for church.
- He will(/would) be at home getting ready for church.
- He will(/would) be at home.

If you are using will/would, that means you are making a conclusion you are quite confident in. But that type of conclusion does not fit with "I'm not sure." So the two don't mix.


----------



## Uncle Jack

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The above extract shows the two differ in degrees of certainty / uncertainty.


It is relatively unusual to express uncertainty using "would", and it can only be used like this in some situations. You seem to think it is always used like this, and it can be used to express uncertainty in any situation. This is not the case.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Uncle Jack said:


> It is relatively unusual to express uncertainty using "would", and it can only be used like this in some situations. You seem to think it is always used like this, and it can be used to express uncertainty in any situation. This is not the case.



I was only trying to make you see the problem, which is _why _the sense in question cannot work in certain examples. Saying "would" works in "Where's John now? He *would *normally be be at home now, getting ready for church" but cannot be used in "Where's John? He *would *be at home" is not a generalization for a learner to understand how "would" is used in the relevant sense. Constraints or conditions on its use must be spelled out. But I think light is beginning to dawn on me, as Kentix has mentioned the presence of evidene as a prerequisite for its use. Presumanbly, "normally" is a kind of evidence.


----------



## kentix

Yes, that is evidence. Not proof. But evidence.

So is this:

- At this time of day he *would *be at home.

Again, not certainty. Not proof. But evidence based on a known pattern.


----------



## se16teddy

I feel the difference rather works the other way round.
- “He’ll be home now” - I am not sure he home, but my surmise is justifiable, it is based in some kind of conscious logic. 
“He’d be home now.” - might just be an inexplicable hunch. I am not even willing to be held accountable for my estimate of probability.


----------



## kentix

Wow. Not for me. I would have to use might.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

se16teddy said:


> I feel the difference rather works the other way round.
> - “He’ll be home now” - I am not sure he home, but my surmise is justifiable, it is based in some kind of conscious logic.
> “He’d be home now.” - might just be an inexplicable hunch. I am not even willing to be held accountable for my estimate of probability.



Do you find "He'd be home now" incompatible with "I'm not sure"?


----------



## kentix

Yes, as I said earlier.


----------



## se16teddy

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Do you find "He'd be home now" incompatible with "I'm not sure"?


If you are sure, you say “He *is *home now”.


----------

