Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 81

Thread: would or will

  1. #41
    MikeNewYork's Avatar
    MikeNewYork is online now VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Academic
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    11,800
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    [quote="jack"]sry, i am trying to say that i have already seen the movie and now i am wondering if she would have went to see it if she was not busy.

    so now i have watched the movie and the next day i said:

    "Would you have gone to the movies with me yesterday, if you weren't busy?"

    What is wrong with my tenses?

    Can you correct them for me? how would i say this?[quote]

    You have seen the movie. You went alone because she told you she was busy. You want to know if her being busy was the only reason she didn't go with you. Is that the sense? Then the best is:

    Would you have gone to the movies with me yesterday if you had not been busy?

    "Would you go to the movies with me if you weren't busy? "
    What is this question asking? is this asking about if she would have gone to the movie with me yesterday, if she had not been busy?
    No, this doesn't ask about yesterday, it is a hypothetical question. The past tense "weren't" is part of the second conditional and is in the subjunctive mood. This past tense does not mean past time; it means present time, hypothetical.

    "Would you go" is present conditional.





    Would you have gone to the movies with me if you weren't busy?

    That is OK, but because of "have gone", the "if" clause would be better in the past perfect.

    Why would it be better with past perfect if i use "have gone", isn't "have gone" present perfect? so i should use the opposite of present perfect, which is past perfect? How come i can use present perfect with past perfect?
    In this case, "would you have gone" or "you would have gone" is not present perfect. It is past conditional, as indicated by "would"

    In the third conditional, we use past perfect in the "if" clause and past conditional in the result clause.

    You would have gone with me if you had not been busy.
    Would you have gone with me if you had not been busy?

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    258
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    In clear text:

    "Would you go with me if you were not busy? " is more polite than asking "Will you go with me if you are not busy?"

    You would have gone with me if you had not been busy.
    Would you have gone with me if you had not been busy?[/quote]
    The two mean that she didn't manage to go with you because she was busy that night.

    Hope that helps. :wink:

  3. #43
    MikeNewYork's Avatar
    MikeNewYork is online now VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Academic
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    11,800
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by henry
    In clear text:

    "Would you go with me if you were not busy? " is more polite than asking "Will you go with me if you are not busy?"
    Yes and no. Would is generally seen as more polite than will, but the that is not the only difference between your two sentences. Your first is a hypothetical. Your second is an actual proposal. To make the proposal more polite, you could change the "will" to "would" in your second, but you wouldn't change the "are not" to "were not".

    :wink:

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    258
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeNewYork
    Quote Originally Posted by henry
    In clear text:

    "Would you go with me if you were not busy? " is more polite than asking "Will you go with me if you are not busy?"
    Yes and no. Would is generally seen as more polite than will, but the that is not the only difference between your two sentences. Your first is a hypothetical. Your second is an actual proposal. To make the proposal more polite, you could change the "will" to "would" in your second, but you wouldn't change the "are not" to "were not".

    :wink:
    My mistake.

    :D

  5. #45
    MikeNewYork's Avatar
    MikeNewYork is online now VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Academic
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    11,800
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by henry
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeNewYork
    Quote Originally Posted by henry
    In clear text:

    "Would you go with me if you were not busy? " is more polite than asking "Will you go with me if you are not busy?"
    Yes and no. Would is generally seen as more polite than will, but the that is not the only difference between your two sentences. Your first is a hypothetical. Your second is an actual proposal. To make the proposal more polite, you could change the "will" to "would" in your second, but you wouldn't change the "are not" to "were not".

    :wink:
    My mistake.

    :D
    But you are learning. That's the good part. :D

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,344
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    If you kill her, what will happen? <--saying that you have not tried to kill her before but will in the future? is this correct? why and why not? and is my explanation correct?

    If you killed her, what would happen? <-- saying that you have tried to kill her before?? is this correct? why and why not? and is my explanation correct?

    If you have killed her, what would happen? <---is this correct? why and why not? what does this mean?

    If you had killed her, what would happen? <---is this correct? why and why not? what does this mean?

  7. #47
    Tdol is offline Editor, UsingEnglish.com
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • Philippines
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    41,590
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    • 1If you kill her, what will happen? <--saying that you have not tried to kill her before but will in the future? is this correct? why and why not? and is my explanation correct?

      2If you killed her, what would happen? <-- saying that you have tried to kill her before?? is this correct? why and why not? and is my explanation correct?

      3If you have killed her, what would happen? <---is this correct? why and why not? what does this mean?

      4If you had killed her, what would happen? <---is this correct? why and why not? what does this mean?


    1- This means that there is a reasonable chance of my killing her. It refers to the future.

    2- This is an imaginary idea. It again refers to the future, but suggests that murder is not really being planned.

    3- Wrong- this should be 'If you have killed her, what will happen?'. This means that the person is not sure whether she is dead, but thinks it'spossible and wants to know the consequences of the killing if true. You shpould 'will', because we're dealing with a real possibility, not an imaginary one.

    4'If you had killed her, what would have happened?' This is talking about the past. You didn't kill her, but we'reimagining that youdid.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,814
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jack
    If you kill her, what will happen? <--saying that you have not tried to kill her before but will in the future? is this correct? why and why not? and is my explanation correct?

    If you killed her, what would happen? <-- saying that you have tried to kill her before?? is this correct? why and why not? and is my explanation correct?

    If you have killed her, what would happen? <---is this correct? why and why not? what does this mean?

    If you had killed her, what would happen? <---is this correct? why and why not? what does this mean?
    Hi, I checked my grammar book. Hope it helps. :wink:


    1. If the situation is TRUE in present/future
    If+ simple present, Subject + simple present or will
    --> the situation you assumed may happen.

    2. If the situation is UNtrue in present/future
    If+ simple past, Subject + would
    --> the situation is more imaginary

    3. If the situation is UNtrue in past
    If+ past perfect, Subject + would have + past participle
    --> the situation happened before, but you assumed another different situation.



    sabrina

  9. #49
    MikeNewYork's Avatar
    MikeNewYork is online now VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Academic
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    11,800
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blacknomi
    Hi, I checked my grammar book. Hope it helps. :wink:


    1. If the situation is TRUE in present/future
    If+ simple present, Subject + simple present or will
    --> the situation you assumed may happen.

    2. If the situation is UNtrue in present/future
    If+ simple past, Subject + would
    --> the situation is more imaginary

    3. If the situation is UNtrue in past
    If+ past perfect, Subject + would have + past participle
    --> the situation happened before, but you assumed another different situation.



    sabrina
    Hi, Sabrina. May I ask which grammar book that came from? Those are pretty good rules of thumb, but they can be a bit misleading.

    1. If the situation is TRUE in present/future
    If+ simple present, Subject + simple present or will
    --> the situation you assumed may happen.
    Michael Swan, and probably others, like to use the true/untrue designation, but I prefer real/unreal. A sentence does not have to be true to be placed in these forms. The differentiation is based, not on the truth of the utterance, but on whether the speaker sees the statement as real versus hypothetical, impossible, etc.

    [If + simple present, subject + simple present] is a zero conditional. This is used for habitual actions or generally accepted facts.

    If one chills water to 32 degrees F, water freezes. (accepted fact)
    If one chills water to 32 degress F, water boils.


    The second is a false statement, but has the same structure.

    If John goes to Pizza Hut, he orders pizza with mushrooms. (habit)

    [If + simple present, subject + simple future]

    That is a first conditional. It states a condition and then states the speaker's view of the result if the condition is fulfilled.

    If one chills water to 32 degrees F, water will freeze.
    If I finish work early on Tuesday, I will go to the gym.


    2. If the situation is UNtrue in present/future
    If+ simple past, Subject + would
    --> the situation is more imaginary
    This is a second conditional. As you have indicated, it used mostly for unreal (hypothetical, highly speculative, impossible) conditions. The result clause uses [would + base verb] the present conditional.

    I just want to add that the verb in the "if" clause is usually in the subjunctive (not simple past), at least in American English.

    If I were King, I would free all the prisoners.

    The subjunctive mood indicates that the speaker's view of the condition is that it is impossible. (He knows that he is not King.)

    When we use the simple past in the "if" statement, we tend to use a non-conditional in the result clause (because it is not strictly a conditional any longer).

    If John were there, I would have seen him. (second conditional, subjunctive)
    If John was there, I missed him. (not really a conditional)


    3. If the situation is UNtrue in past
    If+ past perfect, Subject + would have + past participle
    --> the situation happened before, but you assumed another different situation.
    I would not say that the situation happened before. This structure is used to set up a condition in the past (that didn't happen) and then a result that would have happened had the condition been fulfilled. This is a third conditional. The result clause is in the past conditional.

    If I had studied harder in school, I would have made better grades.

    This postulates a change in the past that, if fulfilled, would have had a result in the past. If the change in the past results in a change in the present, we use a mixed conditional -- past perfect in the "if" clause and present conditional in the result clause.

    If I had studied harder in school, I would be a lawyer today.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,814
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeNewYork
    Hi, Sabrina. May I ask which grammar book that came from? Those are pretty good rules of thumb, but they can be a bit misleading.

    Mike,

    The grammar book is published by Pearson Education. Betty Schrampfer Azar.

    I learned subjuctive mood by these rules. It's hard to figure out the condition, say, when to use would/would+pp/simple present... we have subjuctive mood, but not as complicated as English. So I have to learn by memorizing the rules. Your elaborate explanation is very clear and helpful, but it still takes me time to comprehend, so I printed them out.

    If i have further question, pls don't feel bothered. WE NEED YOUR HELP.


    Anyway, got to go to bed. Wish you have a wonderful weekend.


    sabrina

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Hotchalk