Results 1 to 3 of 3
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Chinese
      • Home Country:
      • China
      • Current Location:
      • China

    • Join Date: Oct 2007
    • Posts: 1,618
    #1

    would and should

    It is understandable (that) her feelings would be hurt.
    It is deplorable (that) they would get so upset over nothing.
    It is incomprehensible to me (that) we would do nothing about it.


    These three sentences are taken from McGraw-Hill's Essential ESL Grammar. My questions are:
    1. Can we use 'should' in place of 'would' without changing the meaning of the sentences?
    2. Can we also use 'would have been hurt', 'would have got so upset' and 'would have done nothing' in place of the original verb forms in the that-clauses?

    Thank you in advance.
    Last edited by joham; 06-Jul-2010 at 09:19. Reason: one sentence added.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Hindi
      • Home Country:
      • India
      • Current Location:
      • India

    • Join Date: Feb 2009
    • Posts: 2
    #2

    Re: would and should

    I am not a teacher.
    Should means must do ,sould is indirect of future tense shall and Would is indirect of future tense will and it is used to represent something which could happen in future(about which someone is not sure) & it can be used for just being polite.
    Read these examples:
    Would
    I would go for a movie.(I am not sure about it)
    He will go for a movie.-direct
    She told me that he would go for a movie.-indirect
    Should
    We shall go for a movie.-direct
    She told me that we should go for a movie.-indirect
    She must go there/She should go there.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Dec 2009
    • Posts: 6,332
    #3

    Re: would and should

    Quote Originally Posted by joham View Post
    It is understandable (that) her feelings would be hurt.
    It is deplorable (that) they would get so upset over nothing.
    It is incomprehensible to me (that) we would do nothing about it.


    These three sentences are taken from McGraw-Hill's Essential ESL Grammar. My questions are:
    1. Can we use 'should' in place of 'would' without changing the meaning of the sentences?
    2. Can we also use 'would have been hurt', 'would have got so upset' and 'would have done nothing' in place of the original verb forms in the that-clauses?

    Thank you in advance.
    ********** NOT A TEACHER **********

    Hello, Joham.

    (1) May I offer this information from Mr. Michael Swan's popular

    PRACTICAL ENGLISH GRAMMAR (1995 edition, section 497):

    British English: It was natural that they SHOULD want him to go to a

    good school.

    American English: It was natural that they WOULD want him... .

    *****

    Therefore, I am guessing that both "It is understandable that her

    feelings would/should be hurt" are correct. "Would" for American English.

    *****

    Can you say "It is understandable that her feelings would have been

    hurt"?

    I do not know.

    Mr. Swan says that we can use would/should + perfect infinitive to talk

    about something that is different from what actually happened.

    So I guess (ONLY my guess), that it would be "good" English to say:

    It is understandable that her feelings would have been hurt if they

    had said that to her (but they did not say that to her).

    ***** Thank you *****

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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