would call

[Kontol]

Could you explain how "would" works in B's sentence?
A: What is grammatically "the taking" called?
The enemy has gone south with the entirety of the northern army at his back. The north is ripe for the taking.
B: I would call it a verbal noun The form is the same as the present participle/gerund, but it has an article and functions as a noun.

 

[5jj]

Could you explain how "would" works in B's sentence?

It's the same use of 'would' you have asked about in several of your threads.

A: What is grammatically "the taking" called? [...]

B: I would call it a verbal noun The form is the same as the present participle/gerund, but it has an article and functions as a noun.

That's as good a term as any., if you really want a label. Few grammarians today feel the need for different labels for every different use of the the -ing form.

 

[Kontol]

It's the same use of 'would' you have asked about in several of your threads.

Is "would" for politeness here?

 

[jutfrank]

ripe for the taking

This is an adjectival expression.

Is "would" for politeness here?

No, of course not. Think about what the speaker is doing.

 

[Kontol]

No, of course not. Think about what the speaker is doing.

If so, is "would" hypothetical here?

 

[jutfrank]

The speaker means to say what he thinks is a good analysis of what the phrase is. There is a suggestion that others may have a different analysis, which is why it isn't presented as a fact.

 

[Kontol]

I see. So, the "would" here is hypothetical, right?

 

[emsr2d2]

No!

 

[Kontol]

No!

If it's not hypothetical, could you tell me what it is?

 

[5jj]

As jutfrank said in post #6, "The speaker means to say what he thinks is a good analysis of what the phrase is. There is a suggestion that others may have a different analysis, which is why it isn't presented as a fact."

The 'would' distances the words from an expression of absolute certainty.

 

[Kontol]

Do you mean "would" shows tentativeness here?

 

[emsr2d2]

I really don't know how many more ways we can explain the use of "would". I think you need to stop obsessing over the word.

 

[Kontol]

I'm beginning to understand a little bit. So using "would" suggests that the speaker is not 100% wedded to his idea. He realises that other ideas might be available. Am I right?

 

[5jj]

Do you really need to ask that question after this? -

As jutfrank said in post #6, "The speaker means to say what he thinks is a good analysis of what the phrase is. There is a suggestion that others may have a different analysis, which is why it isn't presented as a fact."

The 'would' distances the words from an expression of absolute certainty.

 

[emsr2d2]

Read, re-read and then read again each and every response. Quite frequently, we answer a question and then you simply ask it again in a different way. It's getting quite tiresome.

 

[Kontol]

I have read many times. I have been thinking hard to understand it while scratching my head a lot. My English grammar book explains "would" is used to express a hypothetical or used to give an opinion when we're not sure. So, what in post #8 explains is "would" is used to give an opinion when we're not sure? Is that so?

 

[5jj]

Quite frequently, we answer a question and then you simply ask it again in a different way. It's getting quite tiresome.

And you are still doing it. Thread closed.

 

[emsr2d2]

Just accept the dictionary explanation gives you the main way it's used. In reality, we use it in other ways. These are just things native speakers know. Don't try to emulate them!