will vs would

[birdeen's call]

"Would" can also be used to talk about past habits, in the same way that we use "used to". "When I lived by the sea, I would swim every morning." For example.

And "will" can serve the same purpose when it comes to the present, can't it?

[Mr. X]

And "will" can serve the same purpose when it comes to the present, can't it?

No, will always refers to the future.

[birdeen's call]

This isn't true. "Will" can be used for present habits.

He will always come to me asking for money. That's irritating!

[Mr. X]

This isn't true. "Will" can be used for present habits.

He will always come to me asking for money. That's irritating!

That should be: he would always come...

[birdeen's call]

That should be: he would always come...

No. Now you're talking about a past habit. But I'm not an authority here, so I can't convince you. Let's wait for the judgement.
PS: Or better, I can recommend that you read this: http://valenciaenglish.netfirms.com/habits.htm
It should be convincing enough.

[joelsensei]

********** NOT A TEACHER **********

Hello, Mr. X.

(1) I found your question and the posters' answers most

interesting and helpful.

(2) May I suggest that we can all agree to call would a modal?

(Then we need not debate the word conditional.)

(3) I found something in Mr. L. G. Alexander's highly respected

Longman English Grammar that might (!) apply to your question:

We often use would in place of the simple present tense when we

want to sound less definite.

Therefore, MAYBE (!!!) we can analyze your examples this way:

(Two people are speaking) "I am going to bring the contract to your

office on Friday. That is fine." = definite.

"I am going to bring the contract to your office on Friday. That would

be fine." = less definite.

Thank you

I disagree somewhat with Parser's example, but only in part. The original question asked the difference between will/would in the question, "Will/Would you be angry?." The use of modal "will" is being used with epistemic modality, which is the likeliness of a conclusion based on the speaker's deductions. Parser's sentence "That would be fine" has little to do with likeliness of a conclusion but of the speaker's requirements or approval, root modality.

The correct explanation, I believe, is the epistemic interpretation where present and past tenses of "will" express distance from reality. In other words,

1) "Will you be angry?" expresses a future state where the speaker is more direct in his question and expecting a clear and precise answer.

2) "Would you be angry?" expresses a hypothetical state where the speaker is asking without committing him/herself to the situation.

EXAMPLE

Will you take courses in linguistics (this semester) ?
Would you (ever) take courses in linguistics (if you went to college)?

This is from Yule's "Explaining English Grammar"

I hope this helps.

[Mr. X]

Would you (ever) take courses in linguistics (if you went to college)?

This is from Yule's "Explaining English Grammar"

I hope this helps.

Thanks, it does help. Suppose the conversation continues (in the hypothetical), do we keep it to would and avoid will. For instance: Would you take the course...?
"Of course, I would (instead of I will). Why would you ask?"
"Because I am not sure how you would (instead of will) manage."

And so on and so on. So as long as they're keeping it to the hypothetical, we stick with would, right?

EDIT: Also this one. "If you don't want that to happen, it would be in your best interests to change." Would seems right here.

Mr. X

[Tdol]

That should be: he would always come...

I disagree- Birdeen's Call is right to use will there; it's a current habit that is annoying the speaker and not a past one.

[bhaisahab]

And "will" can serve the same purpose when it comes to the present, can't it?

Yes, it can.
"He will always come to me asking for money. That's irritating!" This is correct.