Would+infinitive

[jimmy04]

Hi everyone
First I'd like to clarify that before posting this, I really did read the thread "would" of Aysaa (at least 3 times) but I still don't see what I am concerning.

As usual, I see a lot of native speakers (in American movies for example) said this structure " It/He/She would + infinitive" such as:
1. It would be great.
2. I think he would look hot with some ink.
3. How would you know that?
4. You said you wouldn't read it.

Questions:
a/ If we judge them as the type 2 of If clause, that means that isn't true or will not happen in the future -->It seems to not make sense. I am impressed by Raymott when he said It is a way of saying when you don't have the statistics to back up that statement, but you're pretty sure it's true ( contrasting to conditional clause!!!) but I need more.
So may you all help to explain what 4 sentences above are implying , as well as how to use it

b/ what is the difference btw "would+infinitive" and "would+have+past participle" , when we use "it would have been great"

Thanks

[jimmy04]

Could I have some replies please?

[Raymott]

As usual, I see a lot of native speakers (in American movies for example) said this structure " It/He/She would + infinitive" such as:


1. It would be great. There’s an implicit “if” clause that belongs to this. For example, “It would great (if you could that).”
2. I think he would look hot with some ink. You can look at this as meaning, “I think he would look hot if he had some ink” – though I don’t under what this means. Possibily a tattoo
3. How would you know that?
This means “How do you know that?”
4. You said you wouldn't read it. In this example, we’re dealing with “past tense” of ‘will’ :
“ ‘I won’t do it,“ you said.” => “You said you wouldn’t do it.”

Questions:
a/ If we judge them as the type 2 of If clause, that means that isn't true or will not happen in the future --It seems to not make sense.

I agree. It would not make sense to call all of those “Conditional 2”.

I am impressed by Raymott when he said It is a way of saying when you don't have the statistics to back up that statement, but you're pretty sure it's true ( contrasting to conditional clause!!!) but I need more.
Note that I said that about one specific sentence in which I used “would”. This applies only to something like “I would say it’s an adverb,” for example. You asked me what “would” meant in that specific case. You certainly can’t apply that to ever sentence with “would” in it.

So may you all help to explain what 4 sentences above are implying , as well as how to use it

b/ what is the difference btw "would+infinitive" and "would+have+past participle" , when we use "it would have been great"

“would have…” is the past tense of “would”. You would need to understand “would” before you could understand “would have.

[jimmy04]

Much appreciated to Raymott's reply but I have something unclear

1. It would be great. There’s an implicit “if” clause that belongs to this. For example, “It would great (if you could that).”

If you say there is an implicit if clause here, that means things were referred in the statement are NOT true, aren't they!! because this is the 2 type of IF clause. If yes, it is kind of not right, isn't it.

[5jj]

No, it's merely hypothetical.

[Raymott]

Much appreciated to Raymott's reply but I have something unclear

1. It would be great. There’s an implicit “if” clause that belongs to this. For example, “It would great (if you could that).”

If you say there is an implicit if clause here, that means things were referred in the statement are NOT true, aren't they!! because this is the 2 type of IF clause. If yes, it is kind of not right, isn't it.

I've never called in a Conditional 2. Maybe someone who is more used to attributing numbers to sentences with "would" in them can give you a better idea of how it works.
When I say, "I would call it an adverbial phrase", I am not suggesting that it is not true that it's an adverbial phrase. Rather I am suggesting the opposite: "It is an adverbial phrase, to the best of my knowledge and experience."

[jimmy04]

when someone say that, I also feel that is merely hypothetical and the speaker themself want to express something will be or happen like they say based on his/her experience.
But I am so confused here that is the tense of verb, especially if there is an implicit condition existing behide the statement. Or I just should be known there is not any conditional clause here.

[Raymott]

when someone say that, I also feel that is merely hypothetical and the speaker themself want to express something will be or happen like they say based on his/her experience.
But I am so confused here that is the tense of verb, especially if there is an implicit condition existing behide the statement. Or I just should be known there is not any conditional clause here.

To me, it's simply an issue of politeness.
This also happens with "can =>could". "Can you do this for me?" => "Could you do this for me?"
"Will you do this for me?" => "Would you do this for me?"
"X is Y" => "I'd say that X is Y"

If you can understand this politeness usage, you don't have to worry about conditional 2s or hypotheses, contrary-to-fact propositions, or any of the rest, in relation to this usage.