3

In Macmillan would has such usage Source：

used when you think someone is willing to do something Bruce would lend you the money, I'm sure.

I thought this usage is only for willingness in the past. Now it can refer to the present!

I wonder if this usage is common in everyday speech (both British and American). If I substitute "could", "will" or "might" for "would", will this bring any subtle differences?

ColleenV
  • 11,971
  • 13
  • 47
  • 85
Kinzle B
  • 7,105
  • 27
  • 87
  • 143
  • 1
    The past events, the hypothetical thinking, and being polite are all intertwined because in English unreal (irrealis) mood is expressed in the past tense. – Damkerng T. Mar 29 '14 at 07:23
  • Perhaps what I concern about is how such usage is derived from one of the common usages of would. – Kinzle B Mar 29 '14 at 08:56
  • Because it's not only about tenses, in this case it's about moods (modality). (which is why "would" is classified as a modal verb.) – Damkerng T. Mar 29 '14 at 09:06

1 Answers1

2

The usages of "would" are almost endless. Even though one definition of the word is a past tense of "will", in this case it is more like a prediction, almost "future tense". Read Merriam Webster's Definition

"You know Bruce would loan you the money, just ASK for it!"

"Bruce is running for Governor. He would loan you the money if you could get that bill passed."

As to your second question, absolutely. Each of those words could be substituted for "would" and the sentence would have a completely different meaning.

"Could" would say that he has the money, therefore he can lend it to you, but it gives no hint as to whether Bruce would be inclined to do so.

"Will" says that Bruce has the money and will be happy to loan it to you. That Bruce will make the loan is assured.

"Might" is a big question mark. Hmmm, it's worth a shot.

Jolenealaska
  • 3,157
  • 15
  • 26
  • "Would" says that it is very likely for him to lend you money, right? I thought the whole picture is If you asked Bruce, he would lend you the money. I have on idea how "I'm sure" is derived from this if-clause. @Jolenealaska – Kinzle B Mar 29 '14 at 07:32
  • The speaker says, "Bruce would loan you the money." That means that the speaker predicts both that Bruce has the money and that he will loan it if you ask. He's pretty sure, or he'd use a different word than "would". "Would" in this context also means that something else has to happen. Here, Bruce will loan you the money if you ask. – Jolenealaska Mar 29 '14 at 07:39
  • "Bruce would loan you the money if you would just swallow your pride and ask for the loan." @ZhanlongZheng – Jolenealaska Mar 29 '14 at 07:42
  • @ZhanlongZheng Consider this: "Bruce would have loaned you the money." – Jolenealaska Mar 29 '14 at 07:46
  • I figured out "could" and "might” scenarios, but I don't think it's different from Bruce will lend you the money, I'm sure. – Kinzle B Mar 29 '14 at 07:49
  • "Would" says that (assuming you ask), but "could" and "might" are very different. "Will" says that the loan is assured. "Could" and "might" are very less certain. He might say no. – Jolenealaska Mar 29 '14 at 07:52
  • I just don't think Bruce would lend you the money is different from Bruce will lend you the money. – Kinzle B Mar 29 '14 at 07:55
  • "Would" is still depending upon something else happening. "Bruce would loan you the money, but you have to beg for it." Another option: "Bruce would loan you the money if he had it. – Jolenealaska Mar 29 '14 at 07:58
  • "Bruce will loan you the money." It's as if he has already been asked and has cash in hand to give you. – Jolenealaska Mar 29 '14 at 08:01
  • Your last line sums it up, but his loaning only exists in speaker's imagination, I guess. – Kinzle B Mar 29 '14 at 08:05
  • So "Bruce will loan you the money." means "Bruce is ready for loaning you the money."? – Kinzle B Mar 29 '14 at 08:10
  • Yes. "Will" says it's a done deal. The speaker is sure. It doesn't say specifically that Bruce is aware that he is about to loan money, but he will. – Jolenealaska Mar 29 '14 at 08:12
  • @ZhanlongZheng If Bruce will loan the money, all conditions for the loan have been met. If Bruce would loan the money, there is still a condition that needs to be met. That condition may only be for you to ask, it may be that you need to slay a dragon first. – Jolenealaska Mar 29 '14 at 08:24
  • OK! Can I interpret it this way: having said that, I understand there is a condition for me to meet. But what if I can't figure out what the condition is? Then what should I do? – Kinzle B Mar 29 '14 at 08:54
  • That's why we have context! – Jolenealaska Mar 29 '14 at 08:57
  • Can you plz invent a dialog or something to give a context of this would example? – Kinzle B Mar 29 '14 at 09:01
  • You could add that to your answer for improvement. – Kinzle B Mar 29 '14 at 09:04
  • Now I think Macmillan is misleading here. would here does not represent a willingness. It's more of a prediction as in " That would be John knocking on the door." What do you think? @Jolenealaska – Kinzle B Apr 10 '14 at 10:23
  • In this case, no, I think would does suggest willingness. It also does predict that Bruce will loan the money if whatever condition has been met. So prediction is correct too, but very different from "That would be John knocking on the door." – Jolenealaska Apr 10 '14 at 11:49
  • As for "That would be John knocking on the door.", I see no conditions here. I am confused. – Kinzle B Apr 10 '14 at 11:51
  • That's a big part of why it's a different usage. – Jolenealaska Apr 10 '14 at 11:52
  • As for "What I'd really like is some tea.", is the same usage as in "Bruce would lend you the money."? – Kinzle B Apr 10 '14 at 11:55
  • Nope, that's a different usage yet, expressing desire. – Jolenealaska Apr 10 '14 at 12:02
  • Is there an implied hypothetical scenario in "That would be John knocking on the door."? – Kinzle B Apr 10 '14 at 12:26
  • Sure, that scenario would be that there are at least two people on one side of the door (the speaker needs to speaking to someone), there is a knock at the door, the people can't see John (otherwise the word would be is, not would), and the speaker has reason to believe that the person knocking is John. – Jolenealaska Apr 10 '14 at 12:40
  • I knew this; what I mean is "if what, that would be John." – Kinzle B Apr 10 '14 at 12:43
  • I don't understand. – Jolenealaska Apr 10 '14 at 13:00
  • I mean if what happened, that would be John. e.g. I would leave if John was here. There should be an implicit unreal condition to go with "that would be John". – Kinzle B Apr 10 '14 at 13:06
  • Nope, not necessary. The scenario I explained above would be plenty, of course your scenario would also use "would". – Jolenealaska Apr 10 '14 at 13:38
  • OK. Let me put it this way. Your scenario is not unreal, so would is not apt here. I think it should be "that will be John." – Kinzle B Apr 10 '14 at 13:43
  • No, "will be" implies in the future. If someone is at the door, that's in the present. – Jolenealaska Apr 10 '14 at 14:46
  • "That would be John" is not a very common turn of phrase, usually you'd just say "That's John". – Jolenealaska Apr 10 '14 at 14:47
  • http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/will_1 the 5th sense of will – Kinzle B Apr 10 '14 at 14:48
  • Yes, that's the use in the original scenario, Bruce and the money. – Jolenealaska Apr 10 '14 at 14:51