1

I have been reading these two posts on would: Why "that would be me"? (part 1) & Why "that would be me"? (part 2)

If you want a domestic SUV, then the best choice would be the Ford Escape Hybrid.

If you want functional air filters, the best choice would have to be K&N Air Filter.

If you really want to use WMA, the best choice would be 2-pass encoding.

If you really need a fighter bay, the best choice by far would be a manta bay.

Very similar examples exist with present-tense forms of to be:

If you want real wood, the best choice is engineered flooring.

If you want to stay in colonial Quito, the best choice is the Hotel Real Audiencia.

If you want HD programming, Dish Network is the best choice.

The post and its comments say that with respect to perceived speaker (un)certainty, perhaps the preterite makes the speaker seem more rather than less certain, by emphasizing that the logic of the hypothetical situation is being carefully evaluated.

But I don't fully understand what on earth the logic here is. The auther mentioned this usage of would is quite fashionable. If so, it will account for the majority of would usages. Is it true?

Community
  • 1
Kinzle B
  • 295
  • The short answer is "yes, I think it's true". I read the two links you provided. I think the writer makes his point clearly, citing studies (which he admits are small and statistically insignificant, but not changing his supposition) and good sources. May I ask why you don't feel he is correct? Is it just counter-intuitive? If it is, all I can offer is that as an AmE speaker, it made sense to me. The only aspect he didn't address is 'would be' sounds better (it's a more formal register, sounds more - I hate to say - educated?) and that alone might affect the hearers/readers. – anongoodnurse Apr 24 '14 at 09:54
  • Does that mean whenever I want to show that I'm more certain I can always substitute "would + v" for "simple verb form"? @medica – Kinzle B Apr 24 '14 at 10:11
  • Yes, based on the paper, I believe so. Though it seems counter-intuitive, the higher register and the more considered (and considerate) aspect makes seem so. – anongoodnurse Apr 24 '14 at 10:17
  • CoolHandLouis said it deals with an extremely subtle nuance of English language. After I've read your comment, it does not seem that extremely subtle to me. What do you think? @medica – Kinzle B Apr 24 '14 at 11:46
  • I do think it's subtle to English speakers, but perhaps not as subtle as CoolHandLouis world say (though I don't see his comment). (I wonder if you've noticed how often I employ the same or similar device in my responses to you? I wonder, I do think, he would say, I believe so, seem so, I think, might? I am certain, yet I don't want to just say so. This is pervasive. It's considered somewhat arrogant to simply say I'm right. That is why there are so many softening words in English; would is one of them.) – anongoodnurse Apr 24 '14 at 15:51
  • It's used when it shouldn't need saying. It's a far less aggressive form of say 'Dark Lord!? I'm the Dark Lord, you orcish fool. Give me that ring-box-shaped parcel addressed 'Dark Lord / Barad-Dur / URGENT.' It adds gentle assertion and reprimand, not signs of hesitancy/uncertainty. – Edwin Ashworth Oct 26 '17 at 10:55

1 Answers1

1

I would argue (wink, wink) that use of the modal in those examples does not make the speaker seem more certain, but less confrontational, and therefore more effective if he is trying to convince someone to think a certain way or buy a certain thing. "Would" would be subjunctive if English still had a subjunctive, and the very purpose of the subjunctive mood is to hedge, or simply soften a declarative statement.

Justin
  • 119
  • Good point! Btw, PEU 436.4 provides an example: I'm surprised you didn't like the film. I would have thought it was just your kind of thing. Is it a softer version of "I thought it was just your kind of thing" or of "I think it was just your kind of thing"? – Kinzle B Apr 27 '14 at 01:37
  • 1
    I think that's a softer/hedged version of something like "I can't believe you didn't like that movie", which is rather confrontational, not to mention indicative instead of conditional/subjunctive. – Justin Apr 27 '14 at 01:54
  • Another one: I would have thought we could expect at least forty people. Is it a guess about a past occasion or one about the current occasion? – Kinzle B Apr 27 '14 at 02:41
  • It depends on context. If the event in question has already occurred, then the speaker is saying "I wanted 40 people and 40 people did not show up." If the speaker is discussing a FUTURE event with somebody then that's a good example of hedging. ex: Speaker One: "You'll be lucky if 20 people show up." Speaker Two: "Really? I would have though we could expect 40." Speaker two is politely disagreeing with Speaker One. – Justin Apr 27 '14 at 03:23
  • If the event in question has already occurred, can the speaker say "I thought/had thought we could expect at least forty people."instead? Any nuances? – Kinzle B Apr 27 '14 at 04:21
  • There is a nuance, but it's almost entirely meaningless in modern English. Technically, "I thought" is indicative and "I would have thought" is subjunctive, but most English speakers will understand those two utterances as equivalent. In fact, English has never really known how to deal with modal verbs. In old English, "wolde" was the simple 3rd person preterite of "willan", which meant (and still means in German) "to want or to wish". So, historically speaking, to say "I would have . . . " means I wish I had. – Justin Apr 27 '14 at 05:05