would and should

Status
Not open for further replies.

joham

Key Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Chinese
Home Country
China
Current Location
China
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:

apoorvatyagi4

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Hindi
Home Country
India
Current Location
India
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.
 

TheParser

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
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 *****:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top