ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: I'd be...

Tanit — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:27:35 GMT

For an interesting (and not-so-easy) discussion about "That would be Della's car" versus "That is Della's car" (would of probability), have a look at this thread.
You'll also find some other examples, such as "I'd be his son," where probability is being questioned.

Re: I'd be...

Marius Hancu — Sun, 18 May 2008 23:29:31 GMT

> Bob: Oh, that would be George Bush.

It's probably him

Re: I'd be...

New2grammar — Sun, 18 May 2008 20:10:46 GMT

John: Who is the president of the US?
Bob: Oh, that would be George Bush.

Very interesting example. What's the meaning of would in this context, Kooyeen?

Re: I'd be...

Kooyeen — Sun, 18 May 2008 19:42:36 GMT

I would say "One thing I used to do was..." but I think "One thing I used to do is..." wouldn't be too bad either, in certain contexts.
As for your question, I don't think "would" is ever used instead of "was". It is used as a kind of "used to" (When I was young, I would watch TV for hours), and you'll sometimes see "would" used in a curious way:
John: Who is the president of the US?
Bob: Oh, that would be George Bush.

Re: I'd be...

Newguest — Sun, 18 May 2008 14:55:19 GMT

Do you think it's OK to write it this way, I would write: One thing I used to do was..not is???

Re: I'd be...

Tanit — Sun, 18 May 2008 12:51:19 GMT

Newguest
One thing I used to do is focusing on the feeling of different parts of my body. I'd work on one part of the body after another, then I'd do ..........
I know that it's a very short example, but I would write: I worked on one part..

In your example, would has nothing to do with condition, but it indicates repeated actions or typical behaviour in the past; in other words, it's similar to "I used to".
If you changed that "would work" into "worked", you would refer to only one particular circumstance in which you worked on one part of the body after another. Moreover, it would look odd (to me) because a singular episode would contrast with a past habit, clearly introduced by "One thing I used to do is..." in the previous sentence.

Just my opinion.

Re: I'd be...

Newguest — Sun, 18 May 2008 11:48:21 GMT

CalifJim
Newguest
I was at this friendly spar. I'd be the guy opposite the dude in the white shirt.
I see no reason to use I'd. I also wonder why it is used instead of I was. Is there anything more in the context that makes it more clear?

CJ

Hi guys!

Acually there is no more context, but I just sometimes wonder why people use "I'd" instead of simply "I was"

Some time ago I read how to do some exercise, the guy wrote something like this: One thing I used to do is focusing on the feeling of different parts of my body. I'd work on one part of the body after another, then I'd do ..........

I know that it's a very short example, but I would write: I worked on one part..

take care

Re: I'd be...

CalifJim — Sun, 18 May 2008 07:45:45 GMT

Newguest
I was at this friendly spar. I'd be the guy opposite the dude in the white shirt.

I see no reason to use I'd. I also wonder why it is used instead of I was. Is there anything more in the context that makes it more clear?

Re: I'd be...

Huevos — Sat, 17 May 2008 22:25:14 GMT

It implies a condition. For example, "I'd have been the guy opposite the dude in the white shirt [if you were to have looked]".

I'd be...

Newguest — Sat, 17 May 2008 22:17:37 GMT

Sometimes I wonder why someone uses "I'd" something rather than "I was" for example.

Someone wrote: I was at this friendly spar. I'd be the guy opposite the dude in the white shirt. Why not write: I was the guy opposite..... Does it change anything?