I would agree with whoever gave you that advice

Status
Not open for further replies.

kadioguy

Key Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Chinese
Home Country
Taiwan
Current Location
Taiwan
There is no rule about it but I would agree with whoever gave you that advice that "Good job!" sounds a little patronising.
https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/threads/258556-Good-job!


Does 'would' here mean the following?

would like, love, hate, prefer, etc. something/(somebody) to do something | would rather do something/somebody did something used to say what you like, love, hate, etc.

I'd love a coffee.
I'd be only too glad to help.
I'd hate you to think I was criticizing you.
I'd rather come with you.
I'd rather you came with us.
 
Last edited:
I think it's a theoretical agreement as Emsr2d2 doesn't know the person who gave you the advice.
 
Last edited:
I won't venture to speak for her, but I would not interpret it in that way.
 
I won't venture to speak for her, but I would not interpret it in that way.
Another question: what does 'would' here mean? :shock:
Why not say I will not interpret it in that way?
 
Last edited:
In ems's post, there's an implied conditional: [if the person had asked me,] I would agree.

The same applies to Tdol's post.
 
There is no rule about it but I would agree with whoever gave you that advice that "Good job!" sounds a little patronising.
Is it an implied conditional?

If someone gave you that advice, I would agree with him/her.

I won't venture to speak for her, but I would not interpret it in that way.
Is it also an implied conditional?

I would not interpret it in that way if I were you.
--------


Cross-posted with GoesStation at post #6.
 
Last edited:
Is it an implied conditional?

If someone gave you that advice, I would agree with him/her. :tick:


Is it also an implied conditional?

I would not interpret it in that way if I were you.:cross:
They are both implied conditionals, but you've misinterpreted the second one. Try If someone asked me how to interpret it, I would not interpret it in that way.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I would suggest that you're going to see it a lot, and that you should get used to it.
Yes, it's an implied conditional. But it's very often just polite; it's also a concession that the person who uses it doesn't have all the information you do, and doesn't want to be dogmatic.

The conditions could include the following:
- "If you want my opinion ..." (If it makes any difference to you ... etc).
- "If I have understood your case correctly ..." (If you have given all the relevant facts ...)
- "If I were in your position ..."
- "If I had to give an opinion ..."
 
I would suggest that you're going to see it a lot, and that you should get used to it.
Yes, it's an implied conditional. But it's very often just polite; it's also a concession that the person who uses it doesn't have all the information you do, and doesn't want to be dogmatic.
"
Does the red color mean the following?

I would suggest that you will see it a lot, and that you should get used to it.
 
Does the red color mean the following?

I would suggest that you will see it a lot, and that you should get used to it.

Yes.
 
But why not just say:

I would suggest that you
see it a lot, and that you should get used to it.
________
If the original sentence omitted 'be going to/will', what difference would happen?

I am confused because I think 'suggest' here means 'propose'.

(update)
Or does 'suggest' here mean 'think'?

I would think that you're going to see it a lot, and that you should get used to it.
 
Last edited:
Please don't make your own threads confusing by sidetracking with questions about expressions used in responses. This thread is about 'would'.
I have started a new thread here.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top