# Conditional would vs epistemic would



## everestdude

Please help me with my biggest issue in English and that is how to know if it’s a conditional would or epistemic would. For eg.

A: Jack *would* know about it.
B: That *would* mean the world to me.

Would in sentence A is a epistemic(not conditional) would. Would in sentence B is a conditional. How the heck am I supposed to know just looking at the sentences that one is an epistemic would and the other is a conditional would? *I can easily look at would in sentence B as an epistemic would*. 

Here are two ways for me.

A: Either assume that all woulds are in conditional mood including epistemic woulds. All meaning conditional woulds and epistemic woulds. 
B: The other option is simply always figure out mentally painfully which one is epistemic would and which one is conditional would. If I chose this way, I don’t think I will ever be confident at speaking English.

There are some people that agree with option A and some agree with option B. This is based on the answers I got from this forum after asking questions about conditional(hypothetical) woulds and epistemic woulds extensively. I need your advice. Many non-native speakers are having these issues.


----------



## Glasguensis

If the situation is hypothetical then it’s a hypothetical would. It’s the context which tells us if it’s hypothetical. Sentence B is hypothetical because if it weren’t we would say “that means the world to me” - it’s clearly a reference to something which hasn’t happened yet and is therefore hypothetical. Similarly sentence A is epistemic because it’s obvious from the context that it’s a supposition. If we were sure we would use “Jack knows”, and if we didn’t no we would say something like “Jack might know”.
English is all about context.


----------



## PaulQ

everestdude said:


> For eg.
> 
> A: Jack *would* know about it.
> B: That *would* mean the world to me.


Your examples lack context. Do you mean

If you tell Jack, Jack *would* know about it. Or
It's a pity Jack is not here - Jack *would* know about it.


----------



## SevenDays

everestdude said:


> Please help me with my biggest issue in English and that is how to know if it’s a conditional would or epistemic would. For eg.
> 
> A: Jack *would* know about it.
> B: That *would* mean the world to me.
> 
> Would in sentence A is a epistemic(not conditional) would. Would in sentence B is a conditional. How the heck am I supposed to know just looking at the sentences that one is an epistemic would and the other is a conditional would? *I can easily look at would in sentence B as an epistemic would*.
> 
> Here are two ways for me.
> 
> A: Either assume that all woulds are in conditional mood including epistemic woulds. All meaning conditional woulds and epistemic woulds.
> B: The other option is simply always figure out mentally painfully which one is epistemic would and which one is conditional would. If I chose this way, I don’t think I will ever be confident at speaking English.
> 
> There are some people that agree with option A and some agree with option B. This is based on the answers I got from this forum after asking questions about conditional(hypothetical) woulds and epistemic woulds extensively. I need your advice. Many non-native speakers are having these issues.


To me, "conditional would" (if you use that term) is the "would" that appears in a conditional sentence. What's a conditional sentence? A sentence that has an "if-clause: and a main clause. If I don't see an "if-clause," there is no conditional sentence.

I have noticed that (some) people automatically assume that _would_ always has an implied "if-clause." Not me. I don't make things more complicated than they need to be, particularly in isolated sentences that have no context. I think _Ockham's razor_ works in linguistics too.

So, if I look at your examples, A and B, and I don't see an "If-clause," then I don't see a conditional sentence.

But there is a larger point: _conditional _and _epistemic_ are not mutually exclusive.

What I mean is that even in a "conditional sentence," with an "if-clause:"

_If you ask John, he would tell you_

"would" is still epistemic. It refers to an assumption that the speaker makes; the assumption being that John is _willing_ to tell you.

"Conditional" refers to structure (two clauses, one headed by "if").
"Epistemic" refers to the meaning of the modal verb.


----------



## Uncle Jack

I don't think it is possible to say whether A is an epistemic would or a conditional would without any context. "Jack would know about it, but Jack's dead", looks like a conditional (hypothetical) would to me. On the other hand, "Jack would know about it, let's go and ask him" is an epistemic would.

"Would", like many English words, has a large number of meanings. Some of them are obvious, and I am sure you have no problem interpreting something like "John told me he would arrive on Tuesday" (backshifted "will", or, if you prefer, the future in the past tense) or "When we went to visit Auntie May we would have ice cream" (habitual action in the past). Really I don't see why "Jack would know about it" (let's go and ask him) should give you any difficulty; the context surely points to the speaker's reasoning that Jack does know about it.

However, there is an undoubted problem that many learners have with hypothetical/conditional would, because it is used in such a wide range of situations. Personally I think your option A is a generally sound approach. *If you cannot identify the meaning of "would" from the context*, then it probably is a hypothetical/conditional "would":


everestdude said:


> A: Either assume that all woulds are in conditional mood including epistemic woulds. All meaning conditional woulds and epistemic woulds.


But I do suggest you do your best to understand the meaning from the context first.


----------



## se16teddy

everestdude said:


> B: The other option is simply always figure out mentally painfully


ALL language is full of ambiguity and full of this kind of « mental pain ». It’s not just « would ».

Then, when you are talking about things that may or may not happen, isn’t it sometimes convenient to be ambiguous about
- whether you have in mind particular circumstances in which the things happen (conditional “would”)
- or whether you have not (speculative “would”)?
(I think I might be saying something similar to SevenDays here.)


----------



## everestdude

Uncle Jack said:


> I don't think it is possible to say whether A is an epistemic would or a conditional would without any context. "Jack would know about it, but Jack's dead", looks like a conditional (hypothetical) would to me. On the other hand, "Jack would know about it, let's go and ask him" is an epistemic would.
> 
> "Would", like many English words, has a large number of meanings. Some of them are obvious, and I am sure you have no problem interpreting something like "John told me he would arrive on Tuesday" (backshifted "will", or, if you prefer, the future in the past tense) or "When we went to visit Auntie May we would have ice cream" (habitual action in the past). Really I don't see why "Jack would know about it" (let's go and ask him) should give you any difficulty; the context surely points to the speaker's reasoning that Jack does know about it.
> 
> However, there is an undoubted problem that many learners have with hypothetical/conditional would, because it is used in such a wide range of situations. Personally I think your option A is a generally sound approach. *If you cannot identify the meaning of "would" from the context*, then it probably is a hypothetical/conditional "would":
> 
> But I do suggest you do your best to understand the meaning from the context first.


Epistemic would is used when basically you don’t know about something definitely so you used your knowledge available to make the best assumption. For eg.

Example 1.

Jack: I need someone to help me with designing a website. 
Jeff: Ask Jennifer. She would know about it. 
Here I don’t know definitely that Jennifer knows how to design a website so I am making an assumption. 

Example 2.

Jack: I need someone to help me with designing a website. 
Jeff: Ask Jennifer. She would help you with it.

Here, I don’t know definitely that Jennifer will help you with it so I am making an assumption that she will help you. 


I will have a follow up question but could you please answer me why I can’t understand would in example 2 the same way as example 1? Why can’t would be an epistemic would in example 2?


----------



## Uncle Jack

Epistemic "would" does not fit either of your scenarios. It is fine for talking about what someone is expected to know, but Example 1 isn't about knowledge, but assistance. There is nothing wrong with Jeff answering Jack by talking about what Jennifer knows, but Jeff would use the ordinary present tense: "ask Jennifer. She knows about websites". If Jeff isn't certain, he might say "She probably knows about websites" or "I think she knows about websites".

The construction in example 2 only really allows a hypothetical "would", but the situation isn't at all hypothetical; Jack needs someone to help him, and if Jeff thinks that Jennifer will help him, then Jeff will use "will", not "would".

Epistemic "would" is not that common. It refers to an expectation of what a person knows or is doing, but I don't think it is used for an action in the future.


----------



## everestdude

PaulQ said:


> Your examples lack context. Do you mean
> 
> If you tell Jack, Jack *would* know about it. Or
> It's a pity Jack is not here - Jack *would* know about it.


1


----------



## everestdude

Uncle Jack said:


> Epistemic "would" does not fit either of your scenarios. It is fine for talking about what someone is expected to know, but Example 1 isn't about knowledge, but assistance. There is nothing wrong with Jeff answering Jack by talking about what Jennifer knows, but Jeff would use the ordinary present tense: "ask Jennifer. She knows about websites". If Jeff isn't certain, he might say "She probably knows about websites" or "I think she knows about websites".
> 
> The construction in example 2 only really allows a hypothetical "would", but the situation isn't at all hypothetical; Jack needs someone to help him, and if Jeff thinks that Jennifer will help him, then Jeff will use "will", not "would".
> 
> Epistemic "would" is not that common. It refers to an expectation of what a person knows or is doing, but I don't think it is used for an action in the future.


It’s very complicated. That’s my conclusion. My plan is to stick to hypothetical woulds and only use epistemic woulds when it’s absolutely necessary. And by the way, contributors like Lingobingo, Owlman05 agree with me that those epistemic woulds are also conditional at least in mood with vacuous conditions.


----------



## stuupid

In the following sentences, is it hypothetical or epistemic?


One way to get a good answer *would* be to ask your question in the forum here.

The conditional "would" is used in many, many situations, and it *would* be impossible for me to list them all.


----------



## everestdude

stuupid said:


> In the following sentences, is it hypothetical or epistemic?
> 
> 
> One way to get a good answer *would* be to ask your question in the forum here.
> 
> The conditional "would" is used in many, many situations, and it *would* be impossible for me to list them all.


I guess the first one is an epistemic one and the second one is hypothetical for sure. 

But, honestly both of those woulds can be hypothetical ones. I think it depends on who you ask.


----------



## Chasint

I think you are making an incorrect contrast. Epistemic and hypothetical aren't mutually exclusive adjectives.

If you think "would" can be other than epistemic, please give an example.


----------



## everestdude

Here is an interesting example.

What’s the most expensive furniture you have?
— It *would* have to be sofa. (If somebody asked what my most expensive furniture is)

Many people call this would an epistemic would. But I can also call it a hypothetical would with the condition in parentheses. This makes me think maybe epistemic woulds do have implied conditions.


----------



## everestdude

Chasint said:


> I think you are making an incorrect contrast. Epistemic and hypothetical aren't mutually exclusive adjectives.
> 
> If you think "would" can be other than epistemic, please give an example.


A: If I had taken a graphic design class, I *would* know how to design a newspaper. 
B: What time is it? It *would* be about 3pm. 

A is hypothetical. B is epistemic.


----------



## Chasint

everestdude said:


> A: If I had taken a graphic design class, I *would* know how to design a newspaper.
> B: What time is it? It *would* be about 3pm.
> 
> A is hypothetical. B is epistemic.


Yes but A is also epistemic.


----------



## everestdude

Chasint said:


> Yes but A is also epistemic.


How? What is your definition of epistemic would?


----------



## stephenlearner

everestdude said:


> How? What is your definition of epistemic would?



If Peter had studied English harder last semester, he would have passed the English exam.

I know he didn't study harder.
I know he didn't pass the exam.

But I believe or know that if he had studied English harder, he would have passed the exam.

How do I believe or know it? I could have several reasons. Peter is very clever, for example. Another reason is the exam wasn't really hard.

In conclusion, my knowledge is not groundless.

So it is epistemic "would". If it is not, what is it? I can't think of it belonging to other categories.

Similarly, "will" in _Peter will come to the party tomorrow_ is also epistemic "will".

The words _I believe_ or _I know_ are implied in the sentence.

(I believe) Peter will come to the party tomorrow.

(I know) Peter will come to the party tomorrow.

Epistemic modal verbs talk about you knowing there is a possibility (from 0.1% to 99.9%) that something will happen in real situations or would happen in hypothetical situations.

If you know something is 100% true, you don't use modal verbs. For example, Peter passed the exam.

But concerning the future, you can't know that something will be 100% true. Concerning the past hypothetical situations, you can't know something would have been 100% true. So you use the modal verbs.


----------



## Uncle Jack

I'll stop using "epistemic", (it isn't really a word I know the meaning of), but I will continue to use "hypothetical" (which to my mind is more accurate than "conditional"), and I will call "would" in a sentence like "John would know, lets go and ask him" a "would of expectation".



stuupid said:


> In the following sentences, is it hypothetical or epistemic?
> 
> 
> One way to get a good answer *would* be to ask your question in the forum here.
> 
> The conditional "would" is used in many, many situations, and it *would* be impossible for me to list them all.


Both hypothetical.



everestdude said:


> Here is an interesting example.
> 
> What’s the most expensive furniture you have?
> — It *would* have to be sofa. (If somebody asked what my most expensive furniture is)
> 
> Many people call this would an epistemic would. But I can also call it a hypothetical would with the condition in parentheses. This makes me think maybe epistemic woulds do have implied conditions.


The most expensive furniture you have is something that definitely exists, so I don't see how "would" can be hypothetical. The speaker appears to be using "would" for expectation and "has to be" for thinking about it ("logical deduction" might not be quite right term for estimating the value of furniture).



everestdude said:


> A: If I had taken a graphic design class, I *would* know how to design a newspaper.
> B: What time is it? It *would* be about 3pm.
> 
> A is hypothetical. B is epistemic.


A. Hypothetical
B. Expectation.


----------



## everestdude

Uncle Jack said:


> Epistemic "would" does not fit either of your scenarios. It is fine for talking about what someone is expected to know, but Example 1 isn't about knowledge, but assistance. There is nothing wrong with Jeff answering Jack by talking about what Jennifer knows, but Jeff would use the ordinary present tense: "ask Jennifer. She knows about websites". If Jeff isn't certain, he might say "She probably knows about websites" or "I think she knows about websites".
> 
> The construction in example 2 only really allows a hypothetical "would", but the situation isn't at all hypothetical; Jack needs someone to help him, and if Jeff thinks that Jennifer will help him, then Jeff will use "will", not "would".
> 
> Epistemic "would" is not that common. It refers to an expectation of what a person knows or is doing, but I don't think it is used for an action in the future.


Are you saying my example 1 and 2 are incorrect? 🤨 how? 
Example 1 is expectation. 
Example 2 is “if you asked her, she would help you with it.” It’s hypothetical.


----------



## Uncle Jack

everestdude said:


> Are you saying my example 1 and 2 are incorrect? 🤨 how?
> Example 1 is expectation.
> Example 2 is “if you asked her, she would help you with it.” It’s hypothetical.


You are ignoring the imperatives at the beginning. Imperatives are assertive, and they are very definitely real. 

You cannot really follow the assertiveness of an imperative by merely expressing an expectation:
Ask Jennifer. She knows. ​Ask Jennifer. She would know. ​This isn't my primary objection, though. The main reason you would not use "she would know" to express an expectation about what Jennifer knows is because the conversation is not about what Jennifer is expected to know, but Jack's needing help designing a website, and the conversation does not make logical sense. Using "would" to express expectation is relatively unusual, and usually it requires some kind of introduction, something like "I don't know, but Jennifer would".

Example 2 with "If you asked her, she would help you with it" is hypothetical, as you say, but I don't see how you can go straight from an imperative to a hypothetical. You can't do it even if you include the if-clause: Ask Jennifer. If you asked her, she would help you with it. 

With an imperative, use a real form: Ask Jennifer. She will help you with it.


----------



## everestdude

Uncle Jack said:


> You are ignoring the imperatives at the beginning. Imperatives are assertive, and they are very definitely real.
> 
> You cannot really follow the assertiveness of an imperative by merely expressing an expectation:
> Ask Jennifer. She knows. ​Ask Jennifer. She would know. ​This isn't my primary objection, though. The main reason you would not use "she would know" to express an expectation about what Jennifer knows is because the conversation is not about what Jennifer is expected to know, but Jack's needing help designing a website, and the conversation does not make logical sense. Using "would" to express expectation is relatively unusual, and usually it requires some kind of introduction, something like "I don't know, but Jennifer would".
> 
> Example 2 with "If you asked her, she would help you with it" is hypothetical, as you say, but I don't see how you can go straight from an imperative to a hypothetical. You can't do it even if you include the if-clause: Ask Jennifer. If you asked her, she would help you with it.
> 
> With an imperative, use a real form: Ask Jennifer. She will help you with it.


I see what you are trying to say. If I makes some changes to them, they should be correct.

Example 1.

Jack: I need someone to help me with designing a website.
Jeff: Jennifer would know about it.

Example 2.

Jack: I need someone to help me with designing a website.
Jeff: Jennifer would help you with it.

They should be correct now. The first sentences made them real. Am I correct?


----------



## everestdude

I finally figured it out. I did it. When using woulds, if there are no true conditionals, it’s epistemic would. Conditionals are not applicable to epistemic woulds even if you forcefully create them. This is the simplest way to know whether it’s a epistemic would or hypothetical would. Being a true conditional means the result completely depends on whether the condition is met. Epistemic would is not conditional. Hypothetical would is conditional. Some sentence could be both epistemic or hypothetical, completely depends on the context. For eg.

A: That would’ve been Jennifer’s car. 

The would in the same sentence could be epistemic or hypothetical depending on the context. 

(Note: I am not talking about would as past of will or would used to show past habituals)

I was meditating this morning and all of a sudden, all this came to my mind. Please let me know if I am right on this. 🙏🙏🙏🙏


----------



## Uncle Jack

Example 1 still isn't quite right, but it is very close. Changing "it" to "that" (=designing a website) is probably enough, but the two sentences are more different than we usually expect with this meaning of "would". The first sentence is about needing a person to do something whereas the second sentence is about what someone is likely to know about something. You can say "Jennifer would be able to help you", although now that an action is involved, it is uncertain whether "would" refers to an expectation or a hypothetical situation. Expectation could be expressed using "will" rather than "would". I have no idea what the difference is between "will" and "would" in relation to expectation; they both appear to mean the same thing.

Example 2 has the same problem as my second alternative for Example 1. The sentence isn't clear whether it refers to an expectation or something hypothetical. The context ought to make clear which is meant.


----------



## stephenlearner

Uncle Jack, are the following what you meant? 

I don't know. Jennifer would. Let's go ask her.   

Let's go ask Jennifer. She would know about that. 

Let's go ask Jennifer. She'll know about that.


----------



## Uncle Jack

stephenlearner said:


> Uncle Jack, are the following what you meant?
> 
> I don't know. Jennifer would. Let's go ask her.
> 
> Let's go ask Jennifer. She would know about that.
> 
> Let's go ask Jennifer. She'll know about that.


The first and last are definitely fine. The middle one is probably fine. You have removed the sudden change in what you are talking about, and you have removed the assertiveness of a second person imperative (first person imperatives, with "let's", aren't nearly so assertive), so "would" does not seem out of place like it did in some of your other sentences.


----------



## everestdude

Good morning Uncle Jack,

A: The credit card data would suggest that the US consumers are struggling. The credit card data came out this morning. 

Is the would in the sentence epistemic would? I don’t know how it’s hypothetical.


----------



## Uncle Jack

It looks to be a form of politeness, which may sound absurd given the nature of the subject matter, but if the speaker is arguing with their boss, I can see it being used. This is the same use of "would" that is often called tentative, and that may be its purpose here. It is certainly less assertive than saying "The credit card data suggests that US consumers are struggling" but without explicitly saying that the data only appears to suggest that US consumers are struggling.

I agree with you that it does not appear to be hypothetical.


----------



## everestdude

Uncle Jack said:


> It looks to be a form of politeness, which may sound absurd given the nature of the subject matter, but if the speaker is arguing with their boss, I can see it being used. This is the same use of "would" that is often called tentative, and that may be its purpose here. It is certainly less assertive than saying "The credit card data suggests that US consumers are struggling" but without explicitly saying that the data only appears to suggest that US consumers are struggling.
> 
> I agree with you that it does not appear to be hypothetical.


Thank you for your reply. I heard this sentence on a business news channel by an anchor. I mentioned the second sentence, “The credit card data came out this morning.”, just to give you the context. Does this would fall under epistemic would? Some people use “would” this way even though they are certain just to be polite.

Also, it’s probably a dumb question to ask but in English, hypothetical also means second conditional, and epistemic woulds means non-conditional woulds, right?


----------



## SevenDays

everestdude said:


> Good morning Uncle Jack,
> 
> A: The credit card data would suggest that the US consumers are struggling. The credit card data came out this morning.
> 
> Is the would in the sentence epistemic would? I don’t know how it’s hypothetical.


_The credit card data came out this morning. _

This is factual, but the data can't speak. The data has information, and the information is analyzed/interpreted by someone. In other words, that "someone" makes a judgment/evaluation of the data.

_The credit card data would suggest that the US consumers are struggling_

That's _epistemic would_; it's a judgment/evaluation of what the data means. And often people disagree on what the data means, because people can make different evaluations.


----------



## everestdude

SevenDays said:


> _The credit card data came out this morning. _
> 
> This is factual, but the data can't speak. The data has information, and the information is analyzed/interpreted by someone. In other words, that "someone" makes a judgment/evaluation of the data.
> 
> _The credit card data would suggest that the US consumers are struggling_
> 
> That's _epistemic would_; it's a judgment/evaluation of what the data means. And often people disagree on what the data means, because people can make different evaluations.


That was my exact confusion since it was a factual data. Do you believe in two types of would, one being hypothetical also known as second conditional and the other being epistemic woulds that are not conditional? I don’t know if it was you or somebody that believes they are all epistemic woulds.


----------



## Uncle Jack

everestdude said:


> Also, it’s probably a dumb question to ask but in English, hypothetical also means second conditional, and epistemic woulds means non-conditional woulds, right?


Second and third conditionals describe the effect of hypothetical events. "Would" is used in many other hypothetical situations as well. I have not worked out the meaning of "epistemic" and cannot say whether these are mutually exclusive terms or whether they refer to different things and can overlap.


----------



## SevenDays

everestdude said:


> That was my exact confusion since it was a factual data. Do you believe in two types of would, one being hypothetical also known as second conditional and the other being epistemic woulds that are not conditional? I don’t know if it was you or somebody that believes they are all epistemic woulds.


In my analytical framework, my use:

There is no "conditional would," because there are no "conditional verbs."_ Conditional_ ("conditional sentence") refers to a _grammatical construction_ headed by the conjunction "if." 

_If you analyzed the credit card data, you would also agree that US consumers are struggling_

That is a conditional sentence. And in the conditional sentence, "would" is a modal verb, in its _epistemic_ meaning: My "judgment/conclusion" is that, after reading the credit card data, you "agree" with me. I don't call it "conditional would," for the same reason that I don't call most other words in that sentence "conditional." I don't say "conditional you" or "conditional agree' or "conditional also." The one exception is "if." That's _conditional if_, introducing a _conditional sentence_. 

A conditional sentence is by default "hypothetical," because nothing has happened yet. "Hypothetical" describes a situation, not the modal verb itself.


----------



## everestdude

SevenDays said:


> In my analytical framework, my use:
> 
> There is no "conditional would," because there are no "conditional verbs."_ Conditional_ ("conditional sentence") refers to a _grammatical construction_ headed by the conjunction "if."
> 
> _If you analyzed the credit card data, you would also agree that US consumers are struggling_
> 
> That is a conditional sentence. And in the conditional sentence, "would" is a modal verb, in its _epistemic_ meaning: My "judgment/conclusion" is that, after reading the credit card data, you "agree" with me. I don't call it "conditional would," for the same reason that I don't call most other words in that sentence "conditional." I don't say "conditional you" or "conditional agree' or "conditional also." The one exception is "if." That's _conditional if_, introducing a _conditional sentence_.
> 
> A conditional sentence is by default "hypothetical," because nothing has happened yet. "Hypothetical" describes a situation, not the modal verb itself.



Let’s me ask you one question. Almost everybody would say the following sentence is conditional.
A: My flight to Japan got cancelled yesterday. I would be in Tokyo now. 

If you think “would” in the sentence above is not conditional, I don’t know what to say.


----------



## velisarius

everestdude said:


> If you think “would” in the sentence above is not conditional, I don’t know what to say.


It isn't clearly conditional, so it might sound unnatural.

_Otherwise _(i.e. if it hadn't been cancelled)_ I would be in Tokyo today._


----------



## everestdude

velisarius said:


> It isn't clearly conditional, so it might sound unnatural.
> 
> _Otherwise _(i.e. if it hadn't been cancelled)_ I would be in Tokyo today._



But I am sure SevenDays considers this not conditional. I don’t know why he/she believes you need to have an “if clause” explicitly.

My flight to Japan got cancelled yesterday.  Otherwise, I would be in Tokyo now.


----------



## PaulQ

There are uses of would that is simply the past tense of "will":

A: I will come tomorrow.
B: What did A say?
C: He said he would come tomorrow.



everestdude said:


> Almost everybody would say the following sentence is conditional.
> A: My flight to Japan got cancelled yesterday. I would be in Tokyo now.


Note that is two sentences. Where is the condition?

_If my flight had not been cancelled yesterday [but it was], I would be in Tokyo now [and I am not.]_

For you to be in Tokyo - the condition was that your flight is not cancelled.

_If my flight has not been (or is not) cancelled, I will be in Tokyo in 6 hours._

Your presence in Tokyo is dependent upon the condition that your flight is not cancelled.


----------



## everestdude

PaulQ said:


> There are uses of would that is simply the past tense of "will":
> 
> A: I will come tomorrow.
> B: What did A say?
> C: He said he would come tomorrow.
> 
> 
> Note that is two sentences. Where is the condition?
> 
> _If my flight had not been cancelled yesterday [but it was], I would be in Tokyo now [and I am not.]_
> 
> For you to be in Tokyo - the condition was that your flight is not cancelled.
> 
> _If my flight has not been (or is not) cancelled, I will be in Tokyo in 6 hours._
> 
> Your presence in Tokyo is dependent upon the condition that your flight is not cancelled.



Implied condition is condition. It seems like native speakers don’t know how English is taught to non-native speakers in school.

My flight to Japan got cancelled yesterday. Otherwise, I would be in Tokyo now. = If my flight to japan hasn’t been cancelled, I would be in Tokyo now.


----------



## JulianStuart

everestdude said:


> Implied condition is condition. It seems like native speakers don’t know how English is taught to non-native speakers in school.


Indeed.  We also see all sorts of poor advice and "rules" from sites where English is taught, often by non-native speakers, that we have to undo - a significant reason for the original creation of the WRF site. Grammar rules and nomenclature are only a very small part of how we learn English, so native speakers know little of the issues you discuss  For example, the vast majority of native English speakers would not know the word "epistemic"; they grew up and learnt English just fine without such concepts.

_Would_, given the variety of ways it is used, however, seems to be one of the hardests word for learners to absorb.


----------



## everestdude

JulianStuart said:


> Indeed.  We also see all sorts of poor advice and "rules" from sites where English is taught, often by non-native speakers, that we have to undo - a significant reason for the original creation of the WRF site. Grammar rules and nomenclature are only a very small part of how we learn English, so native speakers know little of the issues you discuss  For example, the vast majority of native English speakers would not know the word "epistemic"; they grew up and learnt English just fine without such concepts.
> 
> _Would_, given the variety of ways it is used, however, seems to be one of the hardests word for learners to absorb.



Undo what I have learned in school and so far? 🤥


----------



## JulianStuart

everestdude said:


> Undo what I have learned in school and so far? 🤥


Not all the teaching is bad, of course   On the other hand, there aren't many native spekaers with whom you could have a discussion about epistemic (although there are some here who specialize in such terminology).


----------



## everestdude

JulianStuart said:


> Not all the teaching is bad, of course   On the other hand, there aren't many native spekaers with whom you could have a discussion about epistemic (although there are some here who specialize in such terminology).



Epistemic term is something completely new to me. I learned about it last week. The only reason I kept asking questions with such terminology is because I thought this was native speakers’ terminology. 🤥🤥 🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥


----------



## Uncle Jack

You will tie yourself up in knots if you think of the hypothetical use of "would" only in terms of condition. There is no point looking for an implied conditions if the writer has not chosen to mention one, and you will see "if" and "would" together and immediately think that "would" must be a conditional "would". How about this?
Mary's parents often used to go on day trips when she was a girl, and two of their favourite destinations were Weymouth and Glastonbury. If they went to Weymouth, Mary would swim in the sea and eat whelks, bought in little twists of paper from stalls on the beach. If they went to Glastonbury, Mary would pretend to be Queen Guinevere, or sometimes the mysterious Lady of the Lake, handing to King Arthur the sword Excalibur.​


----------



## everestdude

Uncle Jack said:


> You will tie yourself up in knots if you think of the hypothetical use of "would" only in terms of condition. There is no point looking for an implied conditions if the writer has not chosen to mention one, and you will see "if" and "would" together and immediately think that "would" must be a conditional "would". How about this?
> Mary's parents often used to go on day trips when she was a girl, and two of their favourite destinations were Weymouth and Glastonbury. If they went to Weymouth, Mary would swim in the sea and eat whelks, bought in little twists of paper from stalls on the beach. If they went to Glastonbury, Mary would pretend to be Queen Guinevere, or sometimes the mysterious Lady of the Lake, handing to King Arthur the sword Excalibur.​



This would is most likely used to show past habitual. But all the woulds I have discussed on this forum is present or future based though. 🤥


----------



## SevenDays

everestdude said:


> Epistemic term is something completely new to me. I learned about it last week. 🤥🤥


Nomenclature is a land of confusion, including here at WR. Have you seen the endless discussions here about "gerund," "participle" and (God help us), "subjunctive"?

_Epistemic _is a standard term among linguists and logicians, but you don't have to use that term. Use whatever works for you. I wouldn't worry about how _others_ use "would." From what I've seen, you have a good intuition on how to use "would" _yourself_. That's what ultimately really matters.


----------



## stephenlearner

You seem to say that conditional _would_ is not epistemic at all. But they are not mutually exclusive, as some native speakers have told you in this thread.

Let's take _might_ for example. It can appear in real-possibility-sentences, for instance: I _might_ visit my parents next month. It can also appear in hypothetical sentences, for example, if I could travel now during the lockdown due to the pandemic, I _might_ go to Japan.

Basically they mean the same: there is a possibility. The difference is that it is a real possibility in the former, while it is a hypothetical possibility in the latter.


----------



## User With No Name

everestdude said:


> Implied condition is condition. It seems like native speakers don’t know how English is taught to non-native speakers in school.
> 
> My flight to Japan got cancelled yesterday. Otherwise, I would be in Tokyo now. = If my flight to japan hasn’t been cancelled, I would be in Tokyo now.


For what it's worth, this is exactly how I (a native English speaker, but not an English teacher) would explain "Otherwise, I would be in Tokyo now" to someone learning English. It's basically a conditional clause with the if-part (the protasis, I believe the smart people call it) implied rather than expressed.


----------



## everestdude

Glasguensis said:


> If the situation is hypothetical then it’s a hypothetical would. It’s the context which tells us if it’s hypothetical. Sentence B is hypothetical because if it weren’t we would say “that means the world to me” - it’s clearly a reference to something which hasn’t happened yet and is therefore hypothetical. Similarly sentence A is epistemic because it’s obvious from the context that it’s a supposition. If we were sure we would use “Jack knows”, and if we didn’t no we would say something like “Jack might know”.
> English is all about context.



When you say it depends on the context whether “would” in a sentence is hypothetical or epistemic. Can you please do me a huge favor? Can you please provide me two sentences with the verb “suggest”, one with epistemic would+suggest and one with hypothetical would+suggest? I often see would+suggest in a sentence as epistemic would. Can you give me a context where I can use hypothetical would+suggest in a sentence? I hope you understand what I am trying to ask.


----------



## everestdude

Here is what I can think of but I don’t know the sentence correct or not. Something like this:

A: If the sentence didn’t include the word “please”, the sentence would suggest I am a rude person. (Context is that the sentence was written by me) The sentence means in reality, the sentence does include the word “please” so the sentence doesn’t suggest I am a rude person. 

Is sentence A correct? The main purpose of this example to use “would+suggest” hypothetically. Is the sentence correct?


----------



## everestdude

Uncle Jack said:


> There is nothing hypothetical here. The sentence exists, and has to suggest something. Hypothetical things do not exist (although they may exist in the future). This appears to be a tentative use of "would". From would - WordReference.com Dictionary of English:
> 6. (used to express lack of certainty):​It would appear that he is guilty.​As far as I am aware, this meaning of "would" is only used in conjunction with some other word that also indicates uncertainty, such as "suggest" in your sentence, or "appear" in the dictionary definition, and the purpose of "would" appears to be to remove any remaining assertiveness. In this way, it is probably closer to "would" used for politeness than anything else.



Good morning,

Isn’t the if clause “if the sentence didn’t include the word,“please”” not hypothetical? Is the sentence “the sentence would suggest I am a rude person” not the result of the hypothesis(if clause)? How is the sentence not hypothetical? 


Another question,

This sentence suggest I am a rude person. Does this sentence mean this sentence is making a suggestion that I am a rude person OR the sentence simply means I am probably a rude person. I was thinking the former one. Maybe the way I understand “suggest” is wrong in the first place. What do you think?


----------



## Uncle Jack

everestdude said:


> Good morning,
> 
> Isn’t the if clause “if the sentence didn’t include the word,“please”” not hypothetical? Is the sentence “the sentence would suggest I am a rude person” not the result of the hypothesis(if clause)? How is the sentence not hypothetical?


I am very sorry,  everestdude. I somehow ignored the first part of the sentence you were asking about. This is an ordinary type 2 conditional, and "would" is hypothetical. Sentence A in post #49 is correct. I have deleted my earlier post. 



everestdude said:


> A: If the sentence didn’t include the word “please”, the sentence would suggest I am a rude person. (Context is that the sentence was written by me) The sentence means in reality, the sentence does include the word “please” so the sentence doesn’t suggest I am a rude person.


This is its meaning.


----------



## everestdude

Uncle Jack said:


> I am very sorry,  everestdude. I somehow ignored the first part of the sentence you were asking about. This is an ordinary type 2 conditional, and "would" is hypothetical. Sentence A in post #49 is correct. I have deleted my earlier post.
> 
> 
> This is its meaning.



Thank you very much for your reply. Please don’t be sorry. It did create some confusion to me though. Did you mean the “if clause” part when you said you missed the first part? Is this sentence common though if I use it with native speakers? Here are some other sentence examples:

A: This sentence is not grammatically correct. This sentence would be grammatically correct if it had a period at the end. (Meaning the sentence is not grammatically correct because it doesn’t have a period at the end.)

B: I won’t to say she is a nice person. I would say she is nice if she treated me well. (Meaning she doesn’t treat me well so I won’t say she is a nice person.)

C: 
Jack: It seems Jeff likes his job. 
Alex: No, it doesn’t seem he likes his job. It would seem he likes his job, if he weren’t looking for another job. (Meaning he is looking for another job so so it doesn’t seem he likes his job.)

Are these all sentences correct and are they all hypothetical(conditional) woulds? I believe they all hypothetical woulds with clear hypothetical conditions. These sentences are made the same way as my previous sentence in #49.


----------



## Uncle Jack

everestdude said:


> Did you mean the “if clause” part when you said you missed the first part?


Yes.


everestdude said:


> Are these all sentences correct and are they all hypothetical(conditional) woulds?


They are all hypothetical. B has at least one error ("I won't *to* say"), and subordinate clauses in type 2 and 3 conditionals usually use the past tense ("I would say she *was *nice"). C also uses the present tense in a subordinate clause, but C sounds odd with "it would seem" in Alex's reply. Jack's statement is fine, and so is Alex's first sentence, but the conditional is poorly worded to act as a rebuttal of Jack's statement.

Type 2 and type 3 conditionals (and mixed 2/3 and 3/2 conditionals) are always hypothetical.


----------



## everestdude

Uncle Jack said:


> Yes.
> 
> They are all hypothetical. B has at least one error ("I won't *to* say"), and subordinate clauses in type 2 and 3 conditionals usually use the past tense ("I would say she *was *nice"). C also uses the present tense in a subordinate clause, but C sounds odd with "it would seem" in Alex's reply. Jack's statement is fine, and so is Alex's first sentence, but the conditional is poorly worded to act as a rebuttal of Jack's statement.
> 
> Type 2 and type 3 conditionals (and mixed 2/3 and 3/2 conditionals) are always hypothetical.



Thank you very much, Uncle Jack, for checking the sentences. I corrected the sentences.

B: I won’t say she is a nice person. I would say she was a nice person if she treated me well. (Meaning she doesn’t treat me well so I won’t say she is a nice person.)

C: 
Jack: It seems Jeff likes his job. 
Alex: No, it doesn’t seem he likes his job. It would seem he liked his job, if he weren’t asking me to look for a another job for him. (Meaning he he asking me to look for another job for him so it doesn’t seem he likes his job.)

Is sentence B correct now? I believe you said sentence A was completely correct. I made some changes in sentence C to make it more appropriate. Please check sentence C. Also, will these sentence sound common if I use them with native speakers?


----------



## Uncle Jack

everestdude said:


> Is sentence B correct now?


Yes.

Alex's first sentence in C is an emphatic rebuttal of Jack's statement (a word for word repetition with the addition of "not"), whereas "it would seem" suggests Alex is agreeing with Jack, and these two clauses do not fit well together. Alex could use "it might seem".

Your example A is fine, but B sounds rather forced and C is an unlikely conversation to have, even if you manage to find a suitable wording for the conditional. The reason A works well but B does not is because A is about facts whereas B is about opinions. This style does not really suit giving an opinion.


----------



## everestdude

Uncle Jack said:


> Yes.
> 
> Alex's first sentence in C is an emphatic rebuttal of Jack's statement (a word for word repetition with the addition of "not"), whereas "it would seem" suggests Alex is agreeing with Jack, and these two clauses do not fit well together. Alex could use "it might seem".
> 
> Your example A is fine, but B sounds rather forced and C is an unlikely conversation to have, even if you manage to find a suitable wording for the conditional. The reason A works well but B does not is because A is about facts whereas B is about opinions. This style does not really suit giving an opinion.



Thank you again for your response. The way I made the sentences are the same.

“It seems Jeff likes his job” to “it would seem Jeff liked his job.”
“He is asking me to look for a job for him” to “if he weren’t asking me to look for a job for him.”

“The sentence doesn’t suggest I am a rude person.” to “the sentence would suggest I am a rude person.”
“The sentence includes the word “please”” to “if the sentence didn’t include the word “please””

If I compare these two sentences next to each other, they are made the same way but yet one is correct and other one doesn’t make sense? 🤥


----------



## Uncle Jack

The original sentences are very different, though. We often use different language to talk about people and about things or facts. Then there is the context. Example C includes an emphatic rebuttal of a statement, and this limits what Alex can say next.


----------



## everestdude

Uncle Jack said:


> The original sentences are very different, though. We often use different language to talk about people and about things or facts. Then there is the context. Example C includes an emphatic rebuttal of a statement, and this limits what Alex can say next.



Thank you again for all your help. Would you please check these sentences? Please just let me know if it’s a hypothetical would or not. 

A: I don’t know what language this is. I think Jack would understand it. He is a linguist. We should ask him.  
B: I don’t know what the correct terminology would be. 
C.
Alex: Do you know who can help me with house painting?
Dan: Ask Jeff. He would help you.

Are they hypothetical woulds? I don’t think so in my opinion. Are the sentences even correct?


----------



## Uncle Jack

A appears to be expectation. "Will" is probably a more likely alternative here.

B also appears to be expectation. I don't know who might be expected to know. This use is common. I am not sure why "would" is preferred in this sentence while "will" is preferred in A. Perhaps it is a hypothetical expectation.

C is not at all natural. The imperative "ask" requires something more assertive than "would", such as "will", again referring to expectation.


----------



## everestdude

Uncle Jack said:


> A appears to be expectation. "Will" is probably a more likely alternative here.
> 
> B also appears to be expectation. I don't know who might be expected to know. This use is common. I am not sure why "would" is preferred in this sentence while "will" is preferred in A. Perhaps it is a hypothetical expectation.
> 
> C is not at all natural. The imperative "ask" requires something more assertive than "would", such as "will", again referring to expectation.



Let me make some changes. I strongly believe this is correct now. What do you think? Is this would hypothetical below?

Alex: Do you know who can help me with house painting?
Dan: I think Jeff would help you with that. 

I believe you said the sentence A and B were correct and they are not conditional. I just would like to confirm.


----------



## Uncle Jack

The primary meaning is expectation. Although there is a difference between "will" and "would" for expectation, I am not sure what it is. There isn't really anything pointing to it being hypothetical. Why would Dan give a hypothetical answer to a direct request?


----------



## stuupid

Uncle Jack, is "would" in the following sentence hypothetical or conditional?

Double​Alexandra Popp is Germany’s captain and a striker and in this game she scored two goals, so we have *Popp double* – *double *meaning two goals. We could also say ‘*brace*‘ in this situation. *A brace* is also two goals, so "*Pops brace"* *would* be an option.


----------



## everestdude

M





Uncle Jack said:


> The primary meaning is expectation. Although there is a difference between "will" and "would" for expectation, I am not sure what it is. There isn't really anything pointing to it being hypothetical. Why would Dan give a hypothetical answer to a direct request?



I apologize for asking a wrong question. Is the use of would correct? I do acknowledge that it not a hypothetical would for sure. 

Alex: I really need to get my house painted before I move in to it. I don’t know who to ask. Do you know anyone by any chance that does painting? 
Dan: I think Jeff would help you with that. 

Dan is just making an assumption/expectation that Jeff will be able to help Alex with it.


----------



## Uncle Jack

stuupid said:


> Uncle Jack, is "would" in the following sentence hypothetical or conditional?
> 
> Double​Alexandra Popp is Germany’s captain and a striker and in this game she scored two goals, so we have *Popp double* – *double *meaning two goals. We could also say ‘*brace*‘ in this situation. *A brace* is also two goals, so "*Pops brace"* *would* be an option.


Hypothetical. "Popp double" is the expression actually used, and is real. Any discussion about it is real. Other expressions that were not used can be talked about in a hypothetical manner.



everestdude said:


> I apologize for asking a wrong question. Is the use of would correct? I do acknowledge that it not a hypothetical would for sure.
> 
> Alex: I really need to get my house painted before I move in to it. I don’t know who to ask. Do you know anyone by any chance that does painting?
> Dan: I think Jeff would help you with that.
> 
> Dan is just making an assumption/expectation that Jeff will be able to help Alex with it.


"Would" is used for expectation, but it tends only to be used in relation to something of academic interest, not for practical assistance, where "will" is almost always used instead. As I said in an earlier post, I don't know what allows "would" to be used in some situations and not others.


----------



## everestdude

Uncle Jack said:


> "Would" is used for expectation, but it tends only to be used in relation to something of academic interest, not for practical assistance, where "will" is almost always used instead. As I said in an earlier post, I don't know what allows "would" to be used in some situations and not others.



Are you saying it incorrect to use would in Dan’s sentence? If it’s incorrect to use would, why is “would” correct in the sentence A below? It should be incorrect too.

A: I don’t know what language this is. I think Jack would understand it. He is a linguist. We should ask him.


----------



## Uncle Jack

everestdude said:


> Are you saying it incorrect to use would in Dan’s sentence? If it’s incorrect to use would, why is “would” correct in the sentence A below? It should be incorrect too.
> 
> A: I don’t know what language this is. I think Jack would understand it. He is a linguist. We should ask him.


Sentence A isn't, as far as I know, in response to a request for practical assistance.

I seem to be forming the opinion that this use of "would" is hypothetical, for something of only academic interest, but the base meaning is that of expectation, which is different from the base meaning of "would" in a type 2 conditional, which describes an effect.


----------



## everestdude

Uncle Jack said:


> Sentence A isn't, as far as I know, in response to a request for practical assistance.
> 
> I seem to be forming the opinion that this use of "would" is hypothetical, for something of only academic interest, but the base meaning is that of expectation, which is different from the base meaning of "would" in a type 2 conditional, which describes an effect.



Hi Uncle Jack,

I don’t know why woulds in the examples below are not hypothetical but would of speculation/inference? Please let me know if they are hypothetical or not. That’s all. Just a small confusion.

Katniss Everdeen: President Snow. What an honor.

President Snow: My dear, I think we can make this so much simpler. If we agree not to lie to each other, what do you think?

Katniss Everdeen: Yes, I think that WOULD save time.

President Snow: Sit down, please.

Scene 2
Johanna Mason: How do we know the wire's not gonna burn up?

Beetee: Because I invented it. I assure you, it won't burn up. [they all look at each other for a moment]

Johanna Mason: Well, it's better than hunting them down.

Katniss Everdeen: Yeah, why not? If it fails, no harm done anyway, right?

Peeta Mellark: Alright, I say we try it.

Finnick Odair: So what can we do to help?

Beetee: Keep me alive for the next six hours. That WOULD be extremely helpful.

(Also, can would of probability/assumption/speculation be used in questions?)


----------



## Uncle Jack

They are both hypothetical.



everestdude said:


> (Also, can would of probability/assumption/speculation be used in questions?)


What do you mean by "would of probability/assumption/speculation"? "Would" can be used for expectation, and this can be used in questions ("Would Peter know?" = Do you think Peter is likely to know?), but I would not call this "probability/assumption/speculation".


----------



## everestdude

Uncle Jack said:


> They are both hypothetical.
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "would of probability/assumption/speculation"? "Would" can be used for expectation, and this can be used in questions ("Would Peter know?" = Do you think Peter is likely to know?), but I would not call this "probability/assumption/speculation".


Thank you very much for the answer. The conditions are not explicit with those woulds. Aren’t the implied conditions for “would” of scene 1 “if we didn’t lie to each other” and “would” for scene 2 “if you kept me alive for the next six hours.”?

(I stole these sentences from this website "Would", used for speculation or inference The person who answered the questions didn’t say they were hypothetical. I knew they were hypothetical. I just wanted to get them checked by you just to confirm)

Can I also use would for expectation in the past? For eg. Would he have known?


----------



## Uncle Jack

everestdude said:


> Aren’t the implied conditions for “would” of scene 1 “if we didn’t lie to each other” and “would” for scene 2 “if you kept me alive for the next six hours.”?


I don't see any point in trying to invent a condition if none is stated. Your first dialogue includes a real condition ("if we agree not to lie to each other"), but this in itself appears not to account for the hypothetical "would". The second dialogue has no condition at all.


----------



## everestdude

You said they are hypothetical but with no implied conditions. I don’t know how I am supposed to understand it. As far as I understand, hypothetical “would” has either explicit or implied conditions.


----------



## Uncle Jack

everestdude said:


> As far as I understand, hypothetical “would” has either explicit or implied conditions.


Perhaps there is an implied condition, but I would not like to say what it is. Personally, I think this always looking for a condition with a hypothetical "would" is both futile and causes confusion.


----------



## everestdude

Uncle Jack said:


> Perhaps there is an implied condition, but I would not like to say what it is. Personally, I think this always looking for a condition with a hypothetical "would" is both futile and causes confusion.


They are not woulds for expectation, right? Just to clarify.


----------



## Uncle Jack

everestdude said:


> They are not woulds for expectation, right? Just to clarify.


No.


----------



## everestdude

Uncle Jack said:


> No.


I just would like to how you understand hypothetical woulds. 
A: I should’ve gone to India with him. I would be Delhi right now. Is this hypothetical would for you and do you still see no point in trying to create a condition just like the previous sentences?


----------



## Uncle Jack

everestdude said:


> I just would like to how you understand hypothetical woulds.
> A: I should’ve gone to India with him. I would be Delhi right now. Is this hypothetical would for you and do you still see no point in trying to create a condition just like the previous sentences.


It is easy to see a condition in this example, but where is the condition in scene 1 in post #67? Don't say it is "if we agree not to lie to each other", for that is expressed in real terms, a type 1 if-clause. The speaker's use of "would" says that there is something else that makes their reply hypothetical.

Quite likely there is always a condition behind a hypothetical "would", but this is often buried somewhere in the mind of the speaker. If the speaker does not state it, then I don't see any point in trying to guess.


----------



## stuupid

Uncle Jack said:


> Quite likely there is always a condition behind a hypothetical "would"


How about the following? There really is no condition. It's very confusing

A: What does "register" mean in football? United failed to register a shot on target.
B: To register a shot on target means to have a shot on target. In this example, United have not troubled the keeper - they have not had any shots on target. Another way of saying 'on target' *would* be 'on goal' - the team did not register a shot on goal.


----------



## Uncle Jack

stuupid said:


> How about the following? There really is no condition. It's very confusing


It is only confusing for you because you insist on looking for a condition. If you don't look for a condition, then there is no confusion. This is why I say it is a mistake to associate hypothetical forms with conditions.

Hypothetical forms can be used for anything that does not actually exist, did not actually exist or hasn't hasn't actually happened. In your example, the sentence says "on target". If you want to discuss "on target", you need to use real forms. The sentence does not say "on goal", and any discussion about "on goal" in that sentence is hypothetical.


----------



## everestdude

Uncle Jack said:


> It is easy to see a condition in this example, but where is the condition in scene 1 in post #67? Don't say it is "if we agree not to lie to each other", for that is expressed in real terms, a type 1 if-clause. The speaker's use of "would" says that there is something else that makes their reply hypothetical.
> 
> Quite likely there is always a condition behind a hypothetical "would", but this is often buried somewhere in the mind of the speaker. If the speaker does not state it, then I don't see any point in trying to guess.


You are basically saying “would” in scene 1 and scene 2 in post #67 are second conditional but only the speakers know what the implied are.


----------



## Uncle Jack

everestdude said:


> You are basically saying “would” in scene 1 and scene 2 in post #67 are second conditional but only the speakers know what the implied are.


No, not at all. I said "quite likely". There may be a conditional somewhere in the speaker's thought process. However, I think it is a waste of time trying to guess what it is.


----------



## Cagey

This thread is closed.

The labels such as « epistemic would » are not sufficiently well-established that answerers will have a shared understanding, leading to contradictions and confusion. It is unlikely that further answers at this point will aid anyone’s understanding.

People are free to post new questions about 'would', but it’s better to focus on the usage than the grammatical labels, since there are so many different grammatical systems in use.

Thank you to everyone who participated in this thread.

Cagey,
moderator


----------

