|
|
 #2 (permalink) Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:42 am Would and Will: The children will/would love it if they come to the countryside. |
|
|
| Who are "they": the children themselves, their parents? |
|
 Cerberus™
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 11 Feb 2009
Posts: 1342
|
|
| #3 (permalink) Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:12 am Would and Will |
|
|
Broadly speaking, "would" is less probable than "will". "Would" in this case is a conditional, that is, its truth depends on certain conditions.
I would interpret your sentence with "would" as:
Provided that they come to the countryside, which is currently not the case, the children will love it. (Improbable situation, though possible.)
With "will":
Provided that they come to the countryside, the childred will love it. (Neutral situation.)
In fixed expressions the primary uncertainty of "would" is sometimes weakened. |
|
Cerberus™
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 11 Feb 2009
Posts: 1342
|
 |
| #4 (permalink) Thu Feb 12, 2009 13:42 pm Would and Will: The children will/would love it if they come to the countryside. |
|
|
Hi Cerberus,
Do you mean that usage of 'would' in a sentence means the probability of happening is less and usage of 'will' makes it certain?
Ex:
We would have to do that job - This means the probability is less that we will end up doing the job.
We will have to do that job - This means that it is certain that we have to do the job in future.
Is my understanding correct?
Rgds,
Nene. |
|
Nene4english
I'm new here and I like it ;-)
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 43
|
|
| #5 (permalink) Thu Feb 12, 2009 22:43 pm Would and Will: The children will/would love it if they come to the countryside. |
|
|
The use of shall and will (and should and would) is one of the more difficult things to learn in English. You might like to read the following page on conditionals, which I found quite well written:
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conditional2.htm
What you said about would being less probable than will is generally true, although would may be used in other senses, too, such as the simple past of will. (As you probably already know, the would we are talking about here is called conditional, not past.)
In "we would have to do that job" a condition is implied, such as "if our boss told us to", or perhaps some other, vague, unforseen conditions. Now, this "if ... told" is a condition that is not currently fulfilled, that is why it is "told", not "tells". ("Told" is a subjunctive, not a simple past: after all, we are not talking about the past here.) Because of this unfulfilled condition, the main clause "we would ..." is improbable, too. Although the condition is not currently fulfilled, it may be fulfilled in the future (though probably not), therefore the main clause is not impossible.
In "we will have to do that job", no condition is implied, so that the statement is presented as something that will certainly happen.
However, a conditional ("if") clause could be added, such as in "the children will love it if we come to the country". Here the main clause "the children will ..." is certain to happen only if the condition "if we come ..." is fulfilled. I would call the resulting sentence neutral: the children may or may not be satisfied in the end.
There is also "I would have done the job, if my collegue had not already done it". Main clause and condition were valid only in the past, and the condition "if my collegue had not ..." has not been fulfilled in the past, that is what this sentence means. Therefore its fulfillment is impossible, and the main clause has not happened (and will never happen) either. |
|
Cerberus™
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 11 Feb 2009
Posts: 1342
|
|
| #6 (permalink) Thu Feb 12, 2009 23:39 pm Would and Will: The children will/would love it if they come to the countryside. |
|
|
Thanks a lot for such an excellent reply. I have been reading on conditions on internet and, to be honest, I have picked up a lot on it now. However, I go crazy when ever I see the usage of 'would' with out a condition part in the sentence, as the one in my example. So, acc to you, to summarize:
- When ever a 'would' is found it may either be past of will or used instead of 'used to' or in a conditional statement.
Is this what is all about would?
I still have a couple of questions and I hope you are not loosing your patience on me :-)
1. I am still confused with the less probability functionality of would. Can it still be used with out implying any conditions but only with less probability?
2. If there is a would in a sentence(with out a conditional part, like the one in my example) which doesn't look like either past of will or 'used to', does it mean that there implies a condition? Or could it also be a less probability one, if answer to my ques 1 is yes.
Sorry for all the silly questions but hope you will understand.
Rgds,
Nene. |
|
Nene4english
I'm new here and I like it ;-)
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 43
|
|
| #7 (permalink) Fri Feb 13, 2009 0:21 am Would and Will: The children will/would love it if they come to the countrysi |
|
|
The children would love it if they came to the countryside:This means that they will love it if they went.
The children will love it if they come to the countryside:This also means that they will love it if the went.
If my answers are not correct please somebody should help me out because they both meant the same message |
|
Sm4u
New Member
Joined: 12 Feb 2009
Posts: 3
Location: Nigeria
|
|
| #8 (permalink) Fri Feb 13, 2009 1:59 am Would and Will: The children will/would love it if they come to the countryside. |
|
|
First of all, I am not an expert on grammar, so I hope you will not read my answers without a grain of salt. I use will and would mainly by intuition, it is hard to make definite theoretical statements on them.
| Nene4english wrote: |
| - When ever a 'would' is found it may either be past of will or used instead of 'used to' or in a conditional statement. |
Yes, I think so. And you could say that "used to" falls within the scope of "past of will", since "will" may also indicate a habit (in the present).
I would say that the only reason why a "would" sentence is usually less probable is because some condition is involved. However, this is all in theory. In practice, the implied condition may be so vague as to be nearly meaningless in some idiomatic uses. Especially in polite expressions.
Example 1: "Sir, my friend would like a word with you."
You could add "if you don't mind", "if you were so inclined", or something similar. But that seems far fetched. Although this "would" probably originated in a situation where there was a condition involved, you might say it is now only an indication of remoteness, of making a statement weaker, so that your request will not seem too demanding.
Example 2: "I would say that..." (I wrote this a few paragraphs ago.)
It is a cautious, and therefore modest, way of saying something. It is cautious because, originally, something like "if this were not too bold a thing to say" or "if I were allowed to give my opinion" may have been implied or even explicated. However, the same applies as in the previous example: this "conditionalness" is so old that, in practice, it just weakens the statement for politeness.
Example 3: "I prefer that he should place the chairs a bit farther to the back, away from the stage. Or would such a distance risk the manager's disapproval, you think, since she always wants to be seated very close to the stage?"
I made up this example to have a case of would whose 'condition' is not obvious. Indeed, it is not obvious, but could you invent a possible condition?
I would add "Or, [if the benches were placed there,] would such a distance risk the manager's disapproval ...?". You could say the condition is stated in the previous sentence "I think he should place ...". It is just not stated in the exact form of a condition.
| Quote: |
| 1. I am still confused with the less probability functionality of would. Can it still be used with out implying any conditions but only with less probability? |
I think not. But it doesn't really matter in practice: how significant is the difference between an almost meaningless condition and none at all? In practice, a conditional "would" without explicit condition may often be considered as less probable than "will".
| Quote: |
| 2. If there is a would in a sentence(with out a conditional part, like the one in my example) which doesn't look like either past of will or 'used to', does it mean that there implies a condition? Or could it also be a less probability one, if answer to my ques 1 is yes. |
Yes, I think a condition is always implied, however vaguely; though some might call this pedantry.
Perhaps commenting on specific sentences would be easier than making general statements. If you could provide some of the panicking sentences, that would help.
One last word: this talk about probability is only about the way a statement is presented. It concerns a basic level. On a higher level, a writer/speaker might use a sentence in "improbability" form to describe a situation that he is actually quite sure will happen.
Example: "The couch would look much better below the window; could you move it for me, lad?"
The implied condition is something like "if the couch were below the window". The couch is not now below the window, but it is very well possible to move it. In fact, the speaker expects that the lad will do what is asked. The situation is by all means probable in the future.
The speaker could even have used "will" instead; in this case that would just be a different way of presenting it, without any real difference at the highest level of meaning.
An afterthought: something similar to all of this probably applies to may/might and can/could. |
|
Cerberus™
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 11 Feb 2009
Posts: 1342
|
|
| #9 (permalink) Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:06 am Would and Will: The children will/would love it if they come to the countrysi |
|
|
| Sm4u wrote: |
The children would love it if they came to the countryside:This means that they will love it if they went.
The children will love it if they come to the countryside:This also means that they will love it if the went.
If my answers are not correct please somebody should help me out because they both meant the same message |
Their meanings are quite similar, but there is a difference: the probability of the first sentence actually happening is less than that of the second. You might consider reading the first few posts in this thread for more details. |
|
Cerberus™
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 11 Feb 2009
Posts: 1342
|
|
| #10 (permalink) Sat Feb 14, 2009 19:13 pm Would and Will: The children will/would love it if they come to the countryside. |
|
|
Hi Cerberus,
Thanks a ton for all the explanation. This makes a lot of things more clear to me. Let me do some more reading on it and will(would here?) definitely come back if I need your help.
Rgds,
Nene. |
|
Nene4english
I'm new here and I like it ;-)
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 43
|
|
| #11 (permalink) Sat Feb 14, 2009 22:34 pm Would and Will: The children will/would love it if they come to the countryside. |
|
|
| Nene4english wrote: |
Hi Cerberus,
Thanks a ton for all the explanation. This makes a lot of things more clear to me. Let me do some more reading on it and will(would here?) definitely come back if I need your help.
Rgds,
Nene. |
That is good to hear! As you say "definitely", the main clause is highly probable, so you would use "will".
In addition, your "if" clause now has the present tense: if you used "would" in your main clause you would have to use "needed" (past subjunctive) in the "if" clause. There are exceptions, but this not one of them.
Small error: you forgot to add "I" in "I will". |
|
Cerberus™
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 11 Feb 2009
Posts: 1342
|
|
|
| "Yes" as well as "I do" | Is it OK to say 'The data is sitting on hard disk'? |
