An emphatic finish would be

[Kontol]

I think "would" is used incorrectly here. It should be "will" instead. "An emphatic finish will be.." and "an emphatic win willl..." What do you think?

Dwi: What is the meaning of the words "Titanic" and "emphatic" in football?

Seven games to go and City one point clear after titanic 2-2 draw.
An emphatic kick from the Lepzig man, who thumps his kick right-footed and into the net to the left of goal.

Damian: Titanic means something really big and strong. In football we use it to decribe a match - usualy a big match between two big/powerful teams - that has had lots of incidents. The game also has lots of meaning for the competition in which it was played - an important league match, a play-off, a semi-final for example - so a lot at stake. The example was from the game between Man City and Liverpool as they both were fighting for the title.

Emphatic in the second example means to hit the ball with real force (very hard indeed). An emphatic finish would be a goal scored with a hard shot. An emphatic win would be a very good win when one team has easily defeated the other team (maybe by a big score).

Titanic/ emphatic

What is the meaning of the words "Titanic" and "emphatic" in football? Seven games to go and City one point clear after titanic 2-2 draw. An empha...

languagecaster.com

 

[emsr2d2]

Perhaps the author should learn to spell Leipzig!

 

[jutfrank]

I think "would" is used incorrectly here. It should be "will" instead. "An emphatic finish will be.." and "an emphatic win willl..." What do you think?

You're mistaken.

Think about what we've said before in all of the other threads you've asked about the use of the word 'would'.

 

[Kontol]

I think Damian imagines different reality for his interpretations. I always look for the omission of "if" in this use of "would".

If you were to ask me. Clearly, this is wrong because the questioner does ask. It doesn't make sense.
If it were "an emphatic finish", it would be...
If you were to use "an emphatic finish, it would be ...

Of the omission of an if clause, which one is a right statement, Jutfrank?

 

[jutfrank]

It doesn't help to think of implied conditionality in cases such as this.

A more pragmatic view is this: Use would be instead of is when you want to give an answer to a question that sounds informative and factual.

A: What's the capital of Indonesia?
B: That would be Jakarta.

 

[Kontol]

The natural answer is Jakarta.

It doesn't help to think of implied conditionality in cases such as this.

A more pragmatic view is this: Use would be instead of is when you want to give an answer to a question that sounds informative and factual.

I disagree. I think Damian's use of "would" referes to a hypothetical. The question is specifically about an emphatic kick. So a straight answer is given in the present indicative: In that case, it means ...
But Damian goes on to provide further information, which answers questions not directly asked. So I think he expresses that information in the conditional mood, to imply "An emphatic finish (if someone were to say it) would be..."

My interpretation about an unspoken if-clause could be wrong and therefore I'd like to ask for suggestion from native speaker what the appropriate interpretation for the unstated if-clause is?

 

[jutfrank]

I disagree. I think Damian's use of "would" referes to a hypothetical.

Ah, so you're teaching me about the uses of 'would' now? Okay, fine.