It would be an exaggeration to describe the French
capital this week as a ghost town, but if you were a Parisian
restaurant owner or a Parisian shop keeper you might be forgiven for
doing so.
In my quarter, the popular pizza restaurant had to close because the chef and waiters could not get to work.
The boulangerie, usually stripped of its millefeuilles
(custard pastry) and tartes aux fraises (strawberry tart) long before I
get home from work, is still bulging with patisserie.
The baker tells me he is down 30-40% on sales because
the usual customers did not dare risk being stranded in the city, and -
instead - stayed home.
And in my local eight-till-late shop, the Moroccan
shopkeeper grumbled it just was not worth stocking up on fresh produce
- everyone was so tired after hours walking to and from work, they
either did not bother to eat in the evenings or they just raided the
freezer. It felt, he said, like there was a war on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should it be 'It would be an exaggeration to describe the French ... ?
Why can't we write 'It will be an exaggeration to describe the French ...?
One of the reasons to write 'would be' is to indicate the hypothetical nature. I learnt this from Marius and a few others who contribute here.
I don't think there is any hypothetical aspect in the given context.