4

I was reading Mari-Lou A's answer would have done on a use of would have without involving any conditional clause, implied or otherwise.

My question is with would. Can would be used for showing assumption and expectation in the present?

Like in one of the definitions (the last one) of would in the Cambridge Dictionary, there is an example That would be Tom. The Dictionary says would is used in this example to show probability of something being true—not talking about the result of an hypothetical condition.

And if that is so then is would being used just because the speaker is being tentative and so he chose the past version of the epistemic will?

tchrist
  • 134,759
RADS
  • 205
  • The condition is implicit i the context to which that refers. Someone gave a weird knock at the door. Three quick short raps, a pause, then two slow raps. -- Oh, that would be Tom.. If there are three quick short raps, a pause, then two slow raps at the door, it would be Tom at the door. I'd say would in that example could be paraphrased "Whenever you hear that weird knock, it will be Tom". That's Tom's knock. – TimR Jan 28 '24 at 12:26
  • 1
    You have here a special case of using would as a hedging or theoretical. Polite hedging: "Tea?" "That would be lovely." Not in the future, but not being presumptuous. Theory: "That would be Tom," because I don't know for sure, only theoretically. – Yosef Baskin Jan 28 '24 at 14:21
  • @TimR A fitting conditional Clause can be added to the question sentences. But isn't it true that we use past for forming conditionals, for events happened in past time frame and for Giving a sense of 'tentativeness' or hedging. Why it is not possible in this case too? And Please give your view on Edwin Ashworth's answer. – RADS Jan 28 '24 at 15:26
  • In such "that-would-be-Tom" utterances, I think there's an implicit "If I'm not mistaken—and I have no reason to believe that I am". I have every reason to believe it is Tom. It is 99.44% declaration. – TimR Jan 28 '24 at 15:37
  • @TimR then that should be true for 'would have' too. But in Mari-LouA's answer the link of which I have added in my original question she said that there are cases where there is no implicit condition. There she was taking about 'would-have'. – RADS Jan 28 '24 at 15:48
  • The answer generalizes with "assumptions, presumptions, and expectations", all of which are based on implicit conditions, and Mari-LouA does indeed refer to an implicit condition ("but they hadn't bought [a helicopter]). – TimR Jan 28 '24 at 15:58

1 Answers1

5

'Would' is certainly used to convey near-certainty for past events:

  • "Somebody let off a stink bomb in the Library yesterday."
  • "That would be Tom" / "That would have been Tom."

The Cambridge Dictionary sense you give does not explicitly prohibit present-timeframe events, but gives an example in the past:

used to refer to what is very likely:

  • "The guy on the phone had a Southern accent."
  • "That would be [/would have been] Tom." {synonymous, as FF explains in a comment}

But statements about possible present-timeframe events expressing strong likelihood are also commonly framed using 'would':

  • "There's somebody coming up the drive."
  • "That would/will be Tom."

An example from the internet (though admittedly there aren't too many) is:

  • A ding ringed out from her phone. "That would be him now, please let me respond." [Wattpad; repunctuated]

Perhaps opting for 'would' adds a slight doubt about how certain the speaker is about the statement, as you say.

But as you suggest, there is alethic modality at play here, not any overt or deducible condition.

Alethic modality is modality that connotes the speaker's estimation of the logical necessity or possibility of the proposition expressed by his utterance [and broadened to an estimate of probability] [Glossary of Linguistic Terms].

'Would' is also used quirkily to someone hesitating to address someone directly:

  • "I've been asked to hand this petition to the headmaster."
  • "That would be me."
Edwin Ashworth
  • 83,272
  • Can you please also add the slight difference in the meaning of using 'would' and 'would have' for using in the sense of near-certainity for past events. As if I start a new query for this question, It might be misunderstood for the difference in conditional usage. – RADS Jan 28 '24 at 15:14
  • —I have asked this question on English language learning forum couple of months ago, most of the answers were similar to what @TimR said. They produce an implicit conditional Clause marking it as just another conditional example. And they are natives too. So is there any disambiguity for 'would' usages? – RADS Jan 28 '24 at 15:20
  • 2
    @RADS I think you're exactly right. It's simply the past tense version of the one with epistemic will expressing probability. These are absolutely not in any fashion some sort of conditionals, despite any and all attempts at rescue readings to the contrary. We use the past tense to hedge our certainty via remoteness a bit more here than seen in the present tense's That will be Tom and That will have been Tom. – tchrist Jan 28 '24 at 23:02
  • 2
    The nice thing about using will/would here instead of epistemic must (as in That must be Tom) is that will inflects for tense when needed to distinguish a statement the speaker is more certain of versus one they aren't exactly 100% sure of but they still think it pretty likely. That nuance can get lost under backshifting, though. @RADS The modal perfects here are used to express the speaker’s present belief/certainty about the likeliness of events that are already in the past when the statement is made: That must have been Tom, That will have been Tom, That would have been Tom. – tchrist Jan 29 '24 at 03:03
  • @tchrist Thankyou for giving a detailed response on my question. As you said the model perfect here are used for speaker' present beliefs about an event happened in the past. But in the example given in the dictionary— "The guy on the phone had a Southern accent." "That would be Tom." Would is also used for present beliefs for events happened in the past as Edwin Ashworth said in the first sentence of his answer. So now I am confused as 'would' is used for present beliefs for events of present as well as past? And 'would-have' for present beliefs for past? So what's the diff.? – RADS Jan 29 '24 at 09:10
  • 2
    @RADS: As per tchrist's example "The guy on the phone had a Southern accent." "That would be [/would have been]* Tom",* it's perfectly natural in English to use the simpler (non-perfect) form for a past tense reference. If Tom is thought to be at the door at time of speaking, obviously the perfect form *would have been* can't be used at all, but if the reference is to a past situation, the perfect is optional, not mandatory. So the natural English preference for simpler phrasing kicks in. – FumbleFingers Jan 29 '24 at 11:39
  • @FumbleFingers Thank you. – RADS Mar 29 '24 at 14:28