4

I was looking at some uses of would and found it frustrating. What was particularly hard for me to grasp was the use of would in affirmative sentences.

Here are a few examples.

You would have to come to the practice at 8'o clock now that you have made it to the team.

Do you think she's coming? I'm sure she would.

These sentences are not hypothetical. These sentences are full of certainty. Then my question is, why do they use would? Is it something like "I would like to", some set idiom phrases that mark politeness?

So I guess my real question is this. Does every sentence become polite if it has "would" in it? Is it why would is used in above sentences?

quetchalcoatle
  • 107
  • 7
  • These sentences sound very strange to me. I can come up with similar sentences where "would" feels natural, but these do not sound like normal conversational English (at least in America). Can you tell a little about where you found them? – leoger Jun 19 '16 at 23:32
  • Yes, the 'tentative' use of preterite "would" does generally introduce a vague sense of diffidence or politeness when used instead of present tense "will". But this not a subjunctive clause; what makes you think it is? – BillJ Jun 20 '16 at 07:36
  • @BillJ What do you mean? http://grammarist.com/grammar/subjunctive-mood/ Would is used in second conditional clauses that expresses improbable situations. – quetchalcoatle Jun 21 '16 at 19:54
  • The first few examples in that website are focusing on the use of the so-called past-subjunctive verb "were" (if I were. I wish I were etc). Then they go on to talk about the mandative subjunctives, such as the ones I quoted. "Would has nothing at all to do with the subjunctive mood. – BillJ Jun 21 '16 at 20:09

2 Answers2

3

You would have to come to the practice at 8 o'clock now that you have made it to the team.

Do you think she's coming? I'm sure she would.

I find it very difficult to imagine anyone actually saying or writing these sentences.

  • The first states a definite situation, that you have made the team, and the consequence which now that calls for should be definite, too: you will have to come to practice.

  • The second is perplexing: the question "Do you think she's coming?" in effect contradicts your certainty. If you're sure, why do you ask?

Would is not justified in either of these; it is not used for "politeness" in this sort of context.

But the two versions you supply in the comments are entirely different.

You would have to be here for the games and any practices that you schedule, they both take place on Tuesday and Thursday.

In this one the definite situation, "now you have made the team", is gone, so we are free to suppose that it appeared in a context which expressed a contingency, a condition which might or might not be true:

Congratulations! You have made the team! We hope you will have time to participate: you would have to &c...

You may or may not have the time, so the coach sets forth the requirements; if you were able to meet this schedule you would be able to accept the invitation to join the team.

Why don't you invite Mary? I'm sure she'd come.

The question makes it clear that you don't know whether Mary has been invited, so it is quite easy to infer that her coming is contingent on her being invited:

I'm sure she would come if you invited her.

StoneyB on hiatus
  • 175,127
  • 14
  • 260
  • 461
  • Thank you for the answer. I agree with you that the "congratulation..." sentence contains a considerable amount of contingency, as it is less forceful and commanding that the one with "now that". However, I still cannot understand how "would" is used here, as I learned that the second conditional (the one used ---if clause is implied in congratulation sentence) is used only when the chance of event's taking place is unreal or impossible. But the situation in congratulation in sentence is perfectly capable of taking place, which made me think that I HAVE TO use "will" instead of would. – quetchalcoatle Jun 20 '16 at 23:06
  • Here is the link about second conditional. http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conditional2.htm – quetchalcoatle Jun 20 '16 at 23:06
  • 2
    @quetchalcoatle You're sufficiently advanced in your command of English to ignore the "baby rules" about 1st/2nd/3rd conditionals you were given to introduce you to conditionals: they're just pedagogical conveniences and don't represent anything real in English syntax. – StoneyB on hiatus Jun 20 '16 at 23:11
  • Ah....it's quite a shock to me. This is the rule I abided by for a very long time. Then "would" can be used in the place of a probable condition that is realistic and possible to happen? Then is there no difference between would and will when it comes to conditionals? – quetchalcoatle Jun 21 '16 at 00:22
  • @quetchalcoatle Use of the modal verbs has been evolving for 900 years, and one of the generalizable trends is a tendency for the past-tense forms to to evolve senses of their own, independent of their present-tense forms. Must has completely effaced its old present-tense form, should and might are close to doing the same thing with shall and may, and would is drifting in that direction. Trying to find regular "rules" for the modals is very iffy. – StoneyB on hiatus Jun 21 '16 at 00:43
  • So one's just gotta trust their gut? – quetchalcoatle Jun 21 '16 at 01:52
  • @quetchalcoatle Trust your experience. – StoneyB on hiatus Jun 21 '16 at 02:11
  • I was trying very hard to understand what might have enabled would to be used in congratulation sentence, but I couldn't figure it out. I think the full sentence with the implied if clause (conditional) is this: You would have to be here for the games and any practices that you schedule if you were able to meet this schedule. I kept reading it, but the only nuance I get from it is that I am in a position where I am unable to do it, or unreal situation. It seems as if coming from a person who knows that I couldn't go because of my inability to meet the schedule. As you know, would is....... – quetchalcoatle Jun 22 '16 at 17:46
  • .... usually used with hypothetical situations, either REAL OR UNREAL. So to eliminate the unrealness-emphasizing nuance of it, I think I will have to make the conditional present, rather than past like this: You would have to be here for the games and any practices that you schedule if you are able to meet this schedule. Like this [http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/278898/difficulty-choosing-between-would-and-will-in-a-seemingly-real-conditional-s?lq=1] I know that I can be completely wrong, so please would describe why would with past conditional is used in your sentence? – quetchalcoatle Jun 22 '16 at 17:50
  • Even with that, should the conditional be present, I think "will" would work better. Is there any specific reason to use would instead of will? Is it for politeness like billj and javalatte said? – quetchalcoatle Jun 22 '16 at 17:54
  • @quetchalcoatle It's not so much about "politeness" as a sort of grammatical acknowledgement that since the hearer has not yet made a commitment their attendance is still an 'open' question. – StoneyB on hiatus Jun 22 '16 at 18:08
  • I agree that it is an open question. But if one applied for the team with the desire to make it to the team and is actually accepted to the team, it is more than likely that one will come to the practice. http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/1531/1/elt.ccp101.full_1531.pdf Here is an article pointing out the erroneous narrowness of the conventional four conditionals. Even here, real non-past is never used with would. Can you please elaborate on the realness and unrealness of the situation? It seems that there are two levels to hypothetical situations, and if they are real, will is used, and.... – quetchalcoatle Jun 22 '16 at 18:22
  • if not, would is. – quetchalcoatle Jun 22 '16 at 18:22
  • @quetchalcoatle In a formal conditional, with an if clause, the condition and consequence clauses must have the same modality. But neither of the examples in your question is a formal conditional: in all of the "condition" or contingency implied by would is left to the hearer's inference. See this question, where I speak of an "implicit condition" and (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) of a "universal condition". – StoneyB on hiatus Jun 22 '16 at 18:41
  • @quetchalcoatle (And by the way, I completely agree Jones & Waller's discussion of what I call the "N-conditionals"; I've quoted that article, and the Maule article they cite, myself on occasion.) – StoneyB on hiatus Jun 22 '16 at 19:06
  • So the modality should always match? When I read some of tchrist's posts, he said that it can mix up and is still perfectly grammatical: [If he does show up, I wouldn’t let him in.] (http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/65796/difference-between-if-present-will-infinitive-and-if-present-would/66143#66143) – quetchalcoatle Jun 23 '16 at 19:26
  • And also, what makes it possible for a conditional sentence with an implied conditional to contain "would" instead of "will"? Is it that with an implied condition, use of would is just licensed because the condition is up to hearer's inference? I read about your answer about implicit and universal condition, but it seemed that that specific question had "would" because the implicit conditional was "if I were you" as fumble finger said. So can you give more specific example of usage of would due to implicit and universal condition? – quetchalcoatle Jun 23 '16 at 19:31
0

There are many meanings and usages of would, as this link shows. Certainly, some of them are a more polite way of saying something.

Compare these two sentences:

You will have to come to the practice at 8 o' clock now that you have made it to the team.

You would have to come to the practice at 8 o'clock now that you have made it to the team.

The first is a simple statement of fact: it would suggests that all team members are required to come at 8 o'clock, so this applies to you.

The second is a polite suggestion: it would be a good idea to come at 8 o'clock.

Do you think she's coming? I'm sure she will.

Do you think she's coming? I'm sure she would.

The first is a simple statement of opinion: you think that she will definitely come. The second could express possiblility, willingness, probablility (see the link for examples). You would need to know a little more about the context of the sentence to work out what specific meaning is intended. None of these implies any additional politeness on the part of the speaker.

JavaLatte
  • 59,614
  • 2
  • 75
  • 134
  • So these are natural uses? What puzzles me is how "have to" can be used with would. Have to implies that it is set, and won't change unless a violation results, right? Well I guess it can be a polite suggestion, but then you say that this use of would is equivalent to saying it would be a good idea to come at 8'o clock, which I think kind of means: You can come at 8, but you don't have to. Also, leoger above mentioned that these sentences sound unnatural with would. Do you think it's a regional difference? – quetchalcoatle Jun 20 '16 at 00:06
  • @quetchalcoatle: have to is very firm, like must. Putting would in front of it is like the sugar coating on the bitter pill: it doesn't mean that you don't have to take the pill. I don't think it's a regional difference- more a personal choice of the speaker. A friend would probably say will because they are not the one imposing the rule: they don't need to be polite. The coach is imposing the rule, and feels that it is necessary to add the sugar coating by using would. – JavaLatte Jun 20 '16 at 00:17
  • Your last sentence says that None of these implies any additional politeness on the part of the speaker. So this one's about the second sentence, I'm sure she would... Hm. You said that the second could express probability, willingness, and possibility. But the speaker used "sure", meaning he is certain she (whoever that is) will come. So how does it explain probability? – quetchalcoatle Jun 20 '16 at 00:26
  • Agreed, the willingness meaning is the most likely: I just wanted to make it clear that exact interpretations of would can be difficult without context. "I am sure" means that you are confident about your opinion. The opinion could express a probablility, for example "I am sure that Germany's chances in the World Cup are good". – JavaLatte Jun 20 '16 at 01:29