The opposite of soft penalty would be a stonewall penalty

[Kontol]

How does "would" work in this sentence? Does it mean might?

We use the phrase "soft penalty" to describe a situation when a referee gives a penalty that should not really have been given; perhaps a player had dived or pretended to win the penalty. The opposite of soft penalty would be a stonewall penalty which is a clear penalty with no doubt attached to it.

 

[Tarheel]

You could say:

The opposite of a soft penalty might be a stonewall penalty ....

Or:

The opposite of a soft penalty is a stonewall penalty ....

(I don't know why pretending to be injured would not incur a penalty.)

 

[Kontol]

Could you tell me the use of would in the sentence?

 

[5jj]

Think of it as an implied conditional:

The opposite of soft penalty, if we were to give one, would be a stonewall penalty

 

[emsr2d2]

Could you tell me explain the use of "would" in the sentence?

 

[Kontol]

The use of "would" here is not non-commital or hypothetical? I'm a little puzzled because there is not an "if" in the sentence, the speaker directly uses"would".

 

[emsr2d2]

Is the use of "would" here is not non-committal or hypothetical? I'm a little puzzled because there is not an no "if" in the sentence; the speaker directly only uses"would".

Re-read 5jj's post and tell us if you think it's non-committal or hypothetical.

 

[jutfrank]

I recall that you've asked us about this use of would a few times before, Kontol.

The difficulty of analysing would be in cases like this is that although you can understand it in the hypothetical sense that post #4 explains, practically speaking it's often just a way for speakers to inform others about what is. I've noticed that it's especially common when you're ranking a list of things. A good example of this is Quentin Tarantino's list of his favourite films:

Every item on the list is introduced by a phrase like "Number one would be ..." In each case, he's really saying nothing more than which film comes next on the list.

I think it's a somewhat similar usage in your example. The speaker is really just saying what the opposite word is. The effect I think is that the speaker is pulling information from one's memory and stating it as fact, and it's in this sense that the 'non-committal' aspect comes into it: our memories are not to be relied on entirely. Look at this exchange:

A: What's the capital city of Indonesia?
B: Um, that would be Jakarta.

 

[jutfrank]

You could say:

The opposite of a soft penalty might be a stonewall penalty ....

That's not right.

 

[Kontol]

Every item on the list is introduced by a phrase like "Number one would be ..." In each case, he's really saying nothing more than which film comes next on the list.

The person says "number one would be...", number second would be..." in each sentence, is it the same idea as hypothetica herel? If you wanted next, numer one would be..."

I think it's a somewhat similar usage in your example. The speaker is really just saying what the opposite word is. The effect I think is that the speaker is pulling information from one's memory and stating it as fact, and it's in this sense that the 'non-committal' aspect comes into it: our memories are not to be relied on entirely. Look at this exchange:

A: What's the capital city of Indonesia?
B: Um, that would be Jakarta.

Is "would" used to state a fact? I'm still confused.

 

[Kontol]

My English grammar book explains "would" is used to make statements sound less direct and therefore more polite.

A: I've looked at the plains, and I like them, but there are few significant problems.
B: Oh? And what would those be?

Speaker B could respond with "and what are those (problems)?", but in a professional setting, saying "what would those be?" is slightly less direct and therefore more polite.

In your example:
A: What's the capital city of Indonesia?
B: Um, that would be Jakarta.

Is the use of "would" here the same as what it explains in my English grammar book, that is, used to make statements sound less direct?

 

[jutfrank]

The person says "number one would be...", number second would be..." in each sentence, is it the same idea as hypothetica herel? If you wanted next, numer one would be..."

I've tried to answer this in post #8.

Is "would" used to state a fact? I'm still confused.

Practically, yes.

In your example:
A: What's the capital city of Indonesia?
B: Um, that would be Jakarta.

Is the use of "would" here the same as what it explains in my English grammar book, that is, used to make statements sound less direct?

Essentially, yes.

 

[Kontol]

A: What's the capital city of Indonesia?
B: Um, that would be Jakarta.

Could you explain what the implied condition behind this is?

 

[5jj]

Could you explain what the implied condition behind this is?

This is not really an implied conditional. This is more like what jutfrank explained in post #8.

 

[stanislaw.masny]

Not a teacher or native speaker.

In every language, I guess, there are phrases that fall outside the rules.

 

[emsr2d2]

In every language, I guess, there are phrases that fall outside the rules.

That's an understatement!

 

[Kontol]

this is not really an implied conditional. This is more like what jutfrank explained in post #8.

Could you tell me which sentence in post 8?

 

[5jj]

The whole of the post.

 

[Kontol]

Well, from what I have read, I'm wondering why is the word "is" in bold in post #8? What do you mean by that?

 

[Rover_KE]

You'll often hear questions and answers like this:

CUSTOMER: Who's the manager of this store?

MANAGER: That would be me.

He means 'I am', and it's as simple as that.

It's pointless trying to read anything more into that common usage of 'would'.