Quote:
Originally Posted by weiming 
Some of the confusion here seems to come from a shallow understanding of the way "would" works, and exactly what it means.
|
One of the major reasons that students are confused, Weiming, is that the modal verbs are badly described as past and present tenses. Historically, yes they were and they can be referred to as Historical past and present tenses to differentiate their backshift roles in reported speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weiming When we use what I will call an "imaginary potential" situation, "would" is needed, and not "will". For example:
"If you were ever hurt, I would be sad."
This sentence, in the speaker's mind is not based on a possibility not the result of some real event, but one that is imagined, that could happen at any time in the future. One confusing habit of native speakers is to not distinguish between the two. Let's take a look.
(Mary is going on a dangerous trip tomorrow Johnny is saying farewell)
(1)
Johnny: Oh Mary, do be careful, I don't know what I will do if you are hurt.
Mary: Worry not a hair on your head, Johnny.
Here, Johnny sees the possibility of Mary being hurt as real and imminent, her journey (in his mind) must end in her being hurt, or not.
(2)
Johnny: Oh Mary, do be careful, I don't know what I would do if you were hurt.
Mary: Oh Jonny, try not to be such a sop, will you?
Here, Johnny's fears are more hypothetical. There is no definite reason that Mary should be hurt, but it is not impossible. Note also the past tense of the verb. Is Johhny saying "if you were hurt already, right now at this moment"? No indeed, he is speaking in the "imaginary" form, where it is necessary to use "would" and not "will". As in:
"Things would be so much easier if I had a car."
"He would be alive today, if only he had been more careful."
This "imaginary" form expresses that the speaker knows that what is mentioned may never, or can never come to pass, it is mentioned only as a remote possibility. How remote, depends on the opinion of the speaker, hence our equally possible dialogues between Mary and Johnny. |
An excellent description, Weiming. Why do you add the "teacher disclaimer" to your posts? You do as well as many of the moderators/teachers.
Just a few points that I'd like to clear up. You seem to have contradicted yourself when you said, [I put both quotes in bold and underlined them] first, that "One confusing habit of native speakers is to not distinguish between the two" and then you stated that "How remote, depends on the opinion of the speaker, hence our equally possible dialogues between Mary and Johnny".
Native speakers don't confuse these forms; the choice of which form to use, remote or less remote, is up to the individual speaker. Since modals are used to reflect personal opinions and since some people are more nervous than other, of course we will find a range of opinions, which are reflected in structure [remote vs less remote] and modal choice.
Another issue that you didn't make clear [though you likely meant this; I put it in red, above] is when you said, "note the past tense of the verb". Were you referring to 'were' or 'were and would'.
The use of 'were' is a past tense FORM, an important distinction; 'would' is not a past tense, it's a tenseless modal, the more remote form of the will/would pair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weiming Consider this, and you will realise the true reason that native speakers feel it is more polite to use "would" rather than "will".
"Will you hand me that bag?" (Blunt and direct, will you do it or not?)
"Can you hand me that bag?" (Well, can you? If you can, then hop to it!)
"Would you hand me that bag?" (I mean, supposing, if you were in the mood, or had the time, or found it convenient---then would you?)
The "imaginary" nature of the structure shows that even in the speaker's heart of hearts s/he only considers it a remote possibility that you will agree to do what is asked, s/he certainly does not require it, or expect it. |
'will' and 'can' are more direct than 'would' and 'could', but they are both polite questions forms because they too express remoteness, not as great a remoteness as 'would' and 'could', hence they are not as polite as the latter two.
Hand me that bag.
Can you hand me that bag? Will you hand me that bag?
Would you hand me that bag? Could you hand me that bag?
I personally think that can and could are slightly more polite than will and would respectively but the difference is so marginal that it's not worth arguing about.
'Nuff said for now. I'm bushed!
Ciao.