[Grammar] it must/will/would be very hot

[NAL123]

A: The water is boiling.

B1): Yes, it must be very hot.

B2): Yes, it will be very hot.

B3): Yes, it would be very hot.

Are they all (B1, B2, B3) correct, and do they mean the same thing?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

All are possible. None is likely. If it's boiling, then of course it's hot.

B1 is the most likely. B3 is the least likely.

 

[GoesStation]

A: The water is boiling.

B1): Yes, it must be very hot.

B2): Yes, it will be very hot.

B3): Yes, it would be very hot.

Are they all (B1, B2, B3) correct, and do they mean the same thing?

I can't imagine a situation where B3 would be natural. It doesn't follow from the initial statement. B2 is also extremely unlikely.

 

[NAL123]

1) It takes just half an hour to reach my dad's office, and he left almost an hour ago. He must be there by now.

2) It takes just half an hour to reach my dad's office, and he left almost an hour ago. He will be there by now.

3) It takes just half an hour to reach my dad's office, and he left almost an hour ago. He would be there by now.

Do sentences 2) and 3) sound unlikely in this context, too?

 

[GoesStation]

1) It takes just half an hour to reach my dad's office, and he left almost an hour ago. He must be there by now.

2) It takes just half an hour to reach my dad's office, and he left almost an hour ago. He will be there by now.

3) It takes just half an hour to reach my dad's office, and he left almost an hour ago. He would be there by now.

Do sentences 2) and 3) sound unlikely in this context, too?

I think number two works in British English (though "he'll" would normally be contracted). We don't use that construction in American English.

Number three is incorrect.

 

[NAL123]

I think number two works in British English (though "he'll" would normally be contracted). We don't use that construction in American English.

Number three is incorrect.

Can I use "I think" with them:

1) I think he must be there by now.

2) I think he will be there by now.

Does it sound like a contradiction?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

1) It takes just half an hour to reach my dad's office, and he left almost an hour ago. He must be there by now.

2) It takes just half an hour to reach my dad's office, and he left almost an hour ago. He will be there by now.

3) It takes just half an hour to reach my dad's office, and he left almost an hour ago. He would be there by now.

Do sentences 2) and 3) sound unlikely in this context, too?

I agree with the comments above, but it depends a little on the context:

- If you're anxious about his whereabouts, #1 is the most likely.

- If you're asserting that you're confident that he made it, #2 is the most likely.

- If you're simply speculating on his whereabouts, #3 is most likely.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Can I use "I think" with them:

1) I think he must be there by now.

2) I think he'll be there by now.

Yes.

Does it sound like a contradiction?

Not at all.

Both are conversational as corrected.

In this context, "I think" simply expresses an opinion. Both 1 and 2 are opinions.

 

[NAL123]

One last question:

1) That must be Tony on the phone.

2) That'll be Tony on the phone.

3) That would be Tony on the phone.

Which one is most likely?

 

[PeterCW]

1) It takes just half an hour to reach my dad's office, and he left almost an hour ago. He must be there by now.

2) It takes just half an hour to reach my dad's office, and he left almost an hour ago. He will be there by now.

3) It takes just half an hour to reach my dad's office, and he left almost an hour ago. He would be there by now.

Do sentences 2) and 3) sound unlikely in this context, too?

Taken in isolation number 3 doesn't sound quite natural, colloquially I would probably substitute "should".
The three options would not be used interchangeably in BrE.

Shall I phone Dad? - He will be there by now.
I phoned and he hasn't answered. - He should be there by now.
I have phoned three times and he hasn't answered. - He must be there by now.

 

[jutfrank]

Stop asking about which form is more likely. That's not going to help.

You should be focusing on the differences in meaning.

 

[NAL123]

Taken in isolation number 3 doesn't sound quite natural, colloquially I would probably substitute "should".
The three options would not be used interchangeably in BrE.

Shall I phone Dad? - He will be there by now.
I phoned and he hasn't answered. - He should be there by now.
I have phoned three times and he hasn't answered. - He must be there by now.

Shall I phone Dad? - He will be there by now = I assume that he is there by now. ("will" is used for assumption/presumption, or for what is likely)
I phoned and he hasn't answered. - He should be there by now = He is probably there by now. ("should" implies probability)
I have phoned three times and he hasn't answered. - He must be there by now = He is certainly there by now. ("must" implies certainty)

Is my understanding correct?

If so, don't we use "would", as a tentative form of "will", to assume/presume anything? Looking at what Piscean said in post #10, I think we don't use "would" in this way. Am I right?

That will be Tony on the phone = I assume ( or it is likely that) that is Tony on the phone. ()

That would be Tony on the phone = I assume (with a little doubt) that is Tony on the phone. ()

 

[jutfrank]

Shall I phone Dad? - He will be there by now = I assume that he is there by now. ("will" is used for assumption/presumption, or for what is likely)

Yes.

I phoned and he hasn't answered. - He should be there by now = He is probably there by now. ("should" implies probability)

I don't know what you understand by 'probability'. This is probably about expectations. We can imagine the speaker is worried about her dad because she expects him to be there but it seems that he isn't.

I have phoned three times and he hasn't answered. - He must be there by now = He is certainly there by now. ("must" implies certainty)

Possibly, yes. We can interpret this as a speaker expressing certainty that his dad is there. The reason for her dad not picking up is not because he's not there—there is another reason. This is not a very clear example.

If so, don't we use "would", as a tentative form of "will", to assume/presume anything? Looking at what Piscean said in post #10, I think we don't use "would" in this way. Am I right?

I suggest you forget about would for the moment.

 

[NAL123]

Possibly, yes. We can interpret this as a speaker expressing certainty that his dad is there. The reason for her dad not picking up is not because he's not there—there is another reason. This is not a very clear example.

I think by "I have phoned three times and he hasn't answered. - He must be there by now." Peter CW meant that the dad is too busy to answer calls and therefore he must be in the office.

 

[GoesStation]

I think by "I have phoned three times and he hasn't answered. - He must be there by now." Peter CW meant that the dad is too busy to answer calls and therefore he must be in the office.

The speaker means he can't think of a reason that his dad wouldn't be there. It's still possible he's somewhere else.

 

[jutfrank]

I think by "I have phoned three times and he hasn't answered. - He must be there by now." Peter CW meant that the dad is too busy to answer calls and therefore he must be in the office.

No, that's not a very likely interpretation at all, if there means 'in the office', where the phone is. Logically, that's like saying if he answers, he is in the office, and if he doesn't answer, he is in the office. If you mean that the phone is not in the office, then that isn't clear.

The interpretation is this: the reason for his not picking up is not due to his not being in the office since he is in the office.

 

[jutfrank]

The speaker means he can't think of a reason that his dad wouldn't be there. It's still possible he's somewhere else.

Well, the use of must really means that it is not possible he's somewhere else.

 

[GoesStation]

Well, the use of must really means that it is not possible he's somewhere else.

When highly stressed in spoken American English, it means "I can't think of anywhere else he could be." I'm pretty sure I've heard the British English-speaking Doctor Who use it the same way.

 

[NAL123]

No, that's not a very likely interpretation at all, if there means 'in the office', where the phone is. Logically, that's like saying if he answers, he is in the office, and if he doesn't answer, he is in the office. If you mean that the phone is not in the office, then that isn't clear.

I thought they were calling their dad on his cell/mobile phone. Some people switch off their cell phones while at work and use office phones instead.;-)

 

[jutfrank]

When highly stressed in spoken American English, it means "I can't think of anywhere else he could be."

Well, I see what you mean but not really. The use of must shows certainty in the speaker's mind. The utterance He must be there is a logical conclusion—the fact that I can't think of anywhere else means that he is nowhere else. There is no other possibility (not at that particular moment in time for that particular speaker).

The stressing of the auxiliary (must) is way to stress this sense of certainty. There's no difference between American and British Englishes here.