0

Can I use "would" if there are no conditionals?

Here's example

That would be Jo calling. I'll answer it.

I don't think there's an implicit conditional behind that sentence. So I thought that "would" is used just for prediction or possibility, without conditional implication. Is it correct?

If it's incorrect, what is the conditional behind that example sentence?

Sorry for my poor English.

  • In this example, "That will* be Jo calling*" is more idiomatic, I think, because you're talking about something real and present, rather than hypothetical. "Would" is better suited to hypothetical scenarios ("What would you do if...? I would..." – Max Williams Oct 26 '17 at 09:36
  • @Max Williams Whereas I'd not use 'That would be Jo calling. I'll answer it.' instead of 'That'll be Jo calling ... I'll answer it.' myself, the fact remains that the politeness/hedging usage of 'would' is commonly used. I'd certainly use it for 'Would you please open the window, Jill' (for {'Open the window, Jill' + politeness markers}). The 'That would be ...' for 'That's ...' is idiomatic, and that's what OP is asking about here. – Edwin Ashworth Oct 26 '17 at 09:56
  • @EdwinAshworth "Would" as a request is a different sense, though, isn't it? I still think that if someone said "that would be" (or "that'd be") they're more likely to be talking about a hypothetical situation, rather than a real ringing telephone. I must admit that my lack of formal knowledge means that I don't actually understand this part of the question: "used just for prediction or possibility, without conditional implication", so I might have missed the point. – Max Williams Oct 26 '17 at 10:10
  • @MaxWilliams Thank you guys. I found the example on this page(https://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-modal-would.htm). Maybe my understanding was wrong. Why does the page say "That would be Jo calling." makes sense as one of usages of "would"? I think either my understanding what the page say or the explaining of the page is wrong. –  Oct 26 '17 at 10:17
  • @user262078 that page seems like a very good explanation of the different ways "would" is used. Personally, in the section which your sentence comes from, "would* for presumption or expectation", I think the second sentence "We saw a police helicopter overhead yesterday morning. | Really? They would have been looking for those bank robbers."* is more natural, and it's interesting that it's an example of using it to refer to things that happened in the past, which they cover elsewhere. So, I think that the first example isn't a very good one, but that may just be my opinion. – Max Williams Oct 26 '17 at 10:26
  • BTW, even though it's not as good an example, and not as natural, in my opinion, as "That will be Jo calling", it is certainly allowable, possibly as a colloqualism, and will have been said by many people, who were clearly understood by the listener. So it's a valid communication, but a lower-quality one (again, in my opinion). – Max Williams Oct 26 '17 at 10:28
  • 1
    I'd say (no, I will say) that they've put that example in the wrong place in the English Club article. @Max Williams, 'That would be John at the door' is a highfalutin' way (considered a politer form by some) of saying 'That will be John at the door', when you're pretty certain it's John. / It can also be a droll usage. I'm reminded of the Father Ted episode where only a priest with a boring monotonous voice can save the day. When Ted (I think) makes the appeal, one priest replies very convincingly 'That would be me, Ted'. – Edwin Ashworth Oct 26 '17 at 10:34
  • @Max Williams Mark Liberman at LanguageLog (given by KinzleB at the duplicate thread)

    << There's a recently-fashionable construction, in which "would be" is used where plain "is" might have been expected. For example, in the imaginary Q&A below, I might respond with B2 rather than B1

    A: I'm looking for Mark Liberman. // B1: That's me. // B2: That would be me.

    ... I'll call it the TWBM construction ... >> trumps EnglishClub (which does not claim to be exhaustive in any case).

     – Edwin Ashworth Oct 26 '17 at 10:42
  • @MaxWilliams Thank you. The second in the section refers to an imaginary thing, but the first one doesn't because "Jo calling" exists as a reality. So you think the first one is good but it's not an error in English. Is my understanding correct? Is the way of understanding a sentence like the example different depdnding on the person who reads it? –  Oct 26 '17 at 10:51
  • sorry. correction: *"the first one isn't good but it's not..." –  Oct 26 '17 at 10:55
  • @EdwinAshworth interesting point, I'm familiar with that usage. There's something subtle going on with that construction, which I can't put my finger on. I feel like it's still going into "hypothetical" territory - almost like the answerer is pretending (in a way) that the speaker said "Who would I need to find if I was looking for Mark Liberman". In other words, it's a not-quite-straight answer to a straight question (or statement). Do you know what I mean? – Max Williams Oct 26 '17 at 12:09
  • @user262078 my summary is that "That would be Jo" is allowed, but "That will be Jo" (more usually contracted to "That'll be Jo") is preferable. – Max Williams Oct 26 '17 at 12:10
  • @user262078 in response to your second point, there is potential, with absolutely every single sentence ever spoken or written, for it to be understood different ways, by different people. – Max Williams Oct 26 '17 at 12:13
  • @MaxWilliams Thank you so much. Your opinion is very helpful for me! –  Oct 26 '17 at 12:24

0 Answers0