would

Hi,

I learned and think the modal 'would' is used for these purposes:

1) as a conditional element, 2) past form of the modal "will" and 3) to show repetition in the past

For the writing below, do a conditional element and the usage as a past form of "will" present? How about no.3? When we see the modal "would" being used in a sentence that has the scenario set in the past, would I be smart to assume it carries a sense of the past although at first and many readings of it may not let me knowt so easily?

Days later, she experienced pain. By June, her diet was limted to bread and water. Anything else would induce the abdominal pain. Thinking that it was her intestine that caused the pain, she went to ...          

Sorry, why does it have to be plural verbs?

1 in 10 Asians are infected with ...

1 in 4 people who have *** end up ... 

------------ 

 # Indicating an action in the past that happened repeatedly or commonly.

In the winters, we would sit by the hole on the frozen lake and fish
for hours.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/would

--------- 

Mr. Wordy,

Could you help me understand why "the past tense of will" is not likely in the original sentence?

A) By June, her diet was limited to bread and water. Anything else would induce the abdominal pain. 

I haven't studied English grammar as systematically as you probably have, but to me the sense is 3 (repetition in the past). Look at this alternative:

If I change the tense to present, will is correct, I think.

Her diet is now limited to bread and water. Anything else will induce the abdominal pain.

New2grammar

Mr. Wordy,

Could you help me understand why "the past tense of will" is not likely in the original sentence?

[...]

If I change the tense to present, will is correct, I think.

Her diet is now limited to bread and water. Anything else will induce the abdominal pain.

You make a good point. I don't feel on very solid ground here, but I'll attempt an answer.

First let's compare:

1) Her diet is now limited to bread and water. Anything else induces the abdominal pain.

2) Her diet is now limited to bread and water. Anything else will induce the abdominal pain.

What is "will" doing in (2), that makes it different from (1)? To me, in some combination it: (a) reinforces the idea of cause-and-effect; (b) emphasises that it really will happen (as in "Anything else will induce the abdominal pain"); (c) weakly indicates the future tense.

Now look at:

3) By June, her diet was limited to bread and water. Anything else would induce the abdominal pain.

Senses (a), (b) and (c), transferred to the past, are, to me, weak or non-existent in (3), and nowhere near as strong as the sense that on several occasions she did eat something else, and that this did indeed induce the pain. And if there is no significant transferral of sense then it probably isn't useful to consider "would" in (3) as the past tense of "will" in (2).

It could be argued that "would" meaning repetition in the past is merely the past tense of "will" meaning repetition in the present. For example: "Boys will be boys"/"Boys would be boys". But I get little sense of repetition in the present in (2).

Mr. Wordy, thanks for your attempt. The material you presented is probably beyond my capability to understand at this point. It's an interesting reply. Thank you again.