In korea, passing by a Korean restaurant, I noticed the food menu they provide, and one of them was a traditional Korean food deodeok-gui(grilled deodeok(a variety of bellflower)), and I thought they may not sell it in Austrailia. So suddenly I came to make an expression "I think they wouldn't sell deodeok-gui in Austrailia", but I'm not sure if it's correct to express presumption or uncertainty. As Raymott said, there's no rule to tell the following three, but how can I tell one from the others? Does it all depend on context? But at least I should know any helpful reasons.
If "would" is used as an opinion, my sentence will be "I'm sure they don't sell deodeok-gui, but I'm saying it in less blunt way", but I tried to use it as presumption, so does it work? Or do I have to say "I think they might/may/could not sell it"?
would: Opinion or hope
would: Presumption or expectation
- I suppose some people would call it torture.
- I would have to agree.
- I would expect him to come.
- That would be Jo calling. I'll answer it.
- He would seem to be getting better. (less certain than: He seems to be getting better.)
Thanks a lot, It's because I can't tell if it's presumption or an opinion when someone says "would", I mean I can't tell if the speaker is sure or unsure of it. After you told me "would" can be a less blunt way of saying your opinion you are sure of, I came into confusion. Please understand me, as you are a native speaker, it would be easy for you to tell the difference, but it's hard for me.
For example, if you say "I would have to agree", does the context tell if you are sure or unsure of something? If you just tell me it's all the matters of context, then I won't ask about it again.
"I would have to agree" means "I agree" for pragmatic purposes.