would or will, I am confused.

Aristotle · #1 (**permalink**) 19-Oct-2006, 17:27

hi everybody there,

Bush refused to spell out how the United States would retaliate. "They'd be held to account," the president said in an ABC News interview.

In light of North Korea's Oct. 9 test detonation of a nuclear bomb, Bush warned that any transfer of nuclear material elsewhere in the world by the North would be considered a grave threat to the security of the United States.

"If we get intelligence that they're about to transfer a nuclear weapon, we would stop the transfer, and we would deal with the ships that were taking the — or the airplane that was dealing with taking the material to somebody," the president said.
Asked how he would retaliate, Bush would not be specific, "You know, I'd just say it's a grave consequence."
"The leader of North Korea to understand that he'll be held to account. Just like he's being held to account now for having run a test," Bush said.

Bush: U.S. will stop N. Korea nuke moves - Yahoo! News

my questions are:

1) What is the grammer for "the red woulds" here if there is any?

2) "They'd be held to account," AND "he'll be held to account."

do these two sentences have any grammatical diffrences

3) "held to account" what does this phrase mean?

i appreciate any ansewer.

thanks in advance.

MikeNewYork · #2 (**permalink**) 20-Oct-2006, 00:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aristotle

hi everybody there,

Bush refused to spell out how the United States would retaliate. "They'd be held to account," the president said in an ABC News interview.

In light of North Korea's Oct. 9 test detonation of a nuclear bomb, Bush warned that any transfer of nuclear material elsewhere in the world by the North would be considered a grave threat to the security of the United States.

"If we get intelligence that they're about to transfer a nuclear weapon, we would stop the transfer, and we would deal with the ships that were taking the — or the airplane that was dealing with taking the material to somebody," the president said.
Asked how he would retaliate, Bush would not be specific, "You know, I'd just say it's a grave consequence."
"The leader of North Korea to understand that he'll be held to account. Just like he's being held to account now for having run a test," Bush said.

Bush: U.S. will stop N. Korea nuke moves - Yahoo! News

my questions are:

1) What is the grammer for "the red woulds" here if there is any?

2) "They'd be held to account," AND "he'll be held to account."

do these two sentences have any grammatical diffrences

3) "held to account" what does this phrase mean?

i appreciate any ansewer.

thanks in advance.

1) All of the "woulds" left in red are used to show hypothetical actions that will happen if the North Koreans do certain things.

The pink "would" is different. It is the past tense of "will" with a sense of being willing.

Present tense: I am talking to the President and he will not be specific.
I am talking to the President and he refuses to be specific.

Past tense: I talked to the President and he would not be specific.
I talked to the President and he refused to be specific.

2) The "they'd be" is the same hypothetical use of would as above.
When the tense shifts to "he'll be", it is no longer hypothetical. In this case it is real -- he will be held accountable for his actions.

3) "Held to account" means "held accountable", "held responsible".

Aristotle · #3 (**permalink**) 20-Oct-2006, 12:19

I'd like to thank you, Mike, for considering my post and for speciefic ,concise and clear ansewers.

could I use "may" or "might" instead of "would" for hypothitecal actions?

if not why?

MikeNewYork · #4 (**permalink**) 20-Oct-2006, 18:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aristotle

I'd like to thank you, Mike, for considering my post and for speciefic ,concise and clear ansewers.

could I use "may" or "might" instead of "would" for hypothitecal actions?

if not why?

In some cases, yes, but not in this case.

When someone uses "would" in a conditional, it is like using "will" if the condition is met. May and might are not that strong.

Example: If he pulled a gun on me, I would/might kill him.

He pulled a gun on me; I will kill him. (definite)
He pulled a gun on me; I may kill him. (possible)

Do you see the difference?