[Grammar] I'll be being unfair.

[beachboy]

I can't say it. I'll be lying to you. I'll be making a fool of you. I'll be being unfair.


Is it right to say "I'll be being..."? It sounds strange to my ears, but I was wondering how to say it, as (I think) other verbs, other than "verb to be", can be used freely.

 

[Rover_KE]

It's OK.

 

[emsr2d2]

I would change all the instances of "I will" to "I would" because you're talking about what you would be doing if you did say it to them.

 

[beachboy]

I would change all the instances of "I will" to "I would" because you're talking about what you would be doing if you did say it to them.

I considered this possibility while I was writing, I even almost changed it, but then I thought "will" wasn't wrong!

 

[GoesStation]

I considered this possibility while I was writing, I even almost changed it, but then I thought "will" wasn't wrong!

It's not automatically wrong. It just doesn't work in that particular sentence.

 

[beachboy]

It's not automatically wrong. It just doesn't work in that particular sentence.

How would you rephrase the sentence?

 

[emsr2d2]

How would you rephrase the sentence?

Other than changing "will" to "would", I wouldn't change anything. You could change "I can't" to "I couldn't" but it's not necessary.

 

[beachboy]

Ems has already told you that 'would' is better than 'will' in that sentence.

I understand. GoesStation said the sentence didn't work in that particular sentence, and I thought he might have referred to something else. My "problem" with the sentence was the "be being" part.

 

[teechar]

How about using "That would be" instead of "I'll be" or "I'll be being"?

 

[Tarheel]

Try:

I can't say it. I'd be lying to you.

 

[abaka]

Your sentences present a perfect context for saying "should".

I can't say it. I should be lying if I did. I should make a fool of you. I should be unfair.

The "would" is quite correct in contemporary English. "Would", however, retains just enough of its original meaning of intent to leave it ever so slightly incongruous here. "Should" properly conveys the -- unwelcome -- necessary consequence. If you are uncomfortable with should, contract it to " 'd".

 

[probus]

Because of my formal education decades ago, it's possible that I'd use 'should' in those sentences, but I doubt if any speakers of BrE feel these days the difference in meaning you note

That goes for speakers of AmE as well. Abaka is right that the distinction would be useful, but it is a distinction that people no longer make or even understand.

 

[GoesStation]

Because of my formal education decades ago, it's possible that I'd use 'should' in those sentences, but I doubt if any speakers of BrE feel these days the difference in meaning you note

This applies doubly to speakers of American English. Only would is natural.

 

[abaka]

Because of my formal education decades ago, it's possible that I'd use 'should' in those sentences, but I doubt if any speakers of BrE feel these days the difference in meaning you note

That's why I suggested contracting it.

 

[emsr2d2]

Because of my formal education decades ago, it's possible that I'd use 'should' in those sentences, but I doubt if any speakers of BrE feel these days the difference in meaning you note

I was never taught the distinction. I do, however, recall my late grandfather (born in 1921) using "should" in places where I use "would". For example, when ordering in a restaurant, he used to say "I should like the vegetable soup please". I've never used it in that way.

I can say with 100% certainty that I had never considered the idea that "I'd" could be a contraction of "I should". I have only ever read it as "I would" or "I had".