Search results for 'tag:Conditionals tag:Difference between' matching tags 'Conditionals' and 'Difference between'

WOULD

shehan1212 — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:37:12 GMT

In formal writing pepole use past simple tense.But i have seen many times books and other articles includes sentenceswhich have been made of "would"...I know that "would" is used in conditional clauses.Where as i realy want to know what are the situations where i can use "wolud" and please explain me whats the difference between "would" and "will".Can i use these two terms as the same meaning in formal writting?

what i want to know is this.please help me to find out this,iv beendying to get a answer which i expect,,
here,this is a sentence which i found in my text book.

"Under this method materials in concern WOULD BE stored in two different places in th company's storeroom"

so my question is this is a general fact.this is tru.so cant i use present simple tense?
"Under this method material in concern ARE STORED.."

Re: conditional: no difference?

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:16:12 GMT

Hi, I think it would be reasonable to assume all that you said.

Would you say the meaning is the more or less the same but no. 2 is more formal but conveys the notion of being doubtful or hypothetical (and that is the about the all the difference between the two) and a person can choose to say no. 1 and 2 depending on how he/she is viewing the situation, eg, whether as doubtful or realistically possible?

If I were (was) a millionnaire, I would buy a house.

Would you say these are reasonable?

If I doubt I would ever be a millionnaire, then I would better use 'were'.
If I thought being a millionnaire is hypothetical, not just doubtful, then I should use 'were' and make it the subjunctive.
If I thought being a millionnaire is realistic, tehn I would better use 'was' since no doubt or hypothetical nature is involved.

Re: Lack of emphasis on NPs in ESL

Kooyeen — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:38:55 GMT

I obviously agree with Forbes: it depends on your first language. I have never had any problems with passive sentences, subjects and objects, the difference between countable and uncountable, etc. because those are all features I have in Italian too. It is not difficult at all for me to use conditional structures (= modal verbs) in polite requests, like in "Could you lend me 1,000 dollars?", because very similar structures are used the same way in Italian too. On the other hand, I know some Asian languages don't even have past or future tenses, so it's easy to imagine how much more difficult it must be for them to learn English.

So instead of focusing on noun phrases, shouldn't we rather focus on the real difficulties, which happen to vary from learner to learner according to their native language and past experience with languages in general?

Anonymous

How about this student?

<<I assume many of you have watched the cartoon "Totally spies", right?
I just wonder why it is "Totally" here. "totally" is always an adverb, so what do they imply when using "totally" here? How can it go with the noun "spies"?>>>

Heh, good question! I don't know! Could somebody tell me more about that, as a side note here without going completely off topic? Otherwise I will open another thread. I would say "Total spies", but if I suspect that "totally" in "Totally spies" is used informally in some dialects to mean "definitely", like in, like " Are you, like, coming to my awesome party tonight? - Oh, yeah, totally!"
If that is the case, then I don't think that "totally" has anything to do with proving learners have trouble with noun phrases. It would suggest learners have trouble with informal English, and if you ask me, that's true.

Re: How to transform this sentences

Tanit — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:58:43 GMT

Thanks for your feedback, Barb.
As for no. 8, students are generally expected to write standard types of conditionals, so I guess Anex' sentence would be the correct choice in a test.
I posted the one with the mixed conditional because I was wondering if native speakers would perceive any difference between them. My idea was that type 3 (If I had been a good cook...) might imply that in the meantime I learnt how to cook, while the mixed type (If I were a good cook...) might stress the fact that I did not make any improvement (still not a good cook while speaking).
However, you write that you don't perceive much difference, so I was probably on the wrong track.

Re: I'd have, I would've

Clive — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:52:41 GMT

Hi guys,
This is a basic question though, please teach me if there is any meaning difference
between " I'd have ..." and " I would've ...". Not much at all. Perhaps #1 focuses a bit more on the act you are talking about, and #2 focuses a bit more on the fact that the act is conditional / hypothetical. But really, there's very little difference.

Do you use I'd've... , too? Yes, all the time, very common in speech.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: meat is inspected by federal agents, they would not inspect every animal to be...

shaved — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:23:26 GMT

both sentences contain a tense shift (or conditional shift I guess)

Jackson6612
Although meat is inspected by federal agents, they would not inspect every animal to be slaughtered.

should read: Although meat is inspected by federal agents, they do not inspect every animal to be slaughtered.

Jackson6612
Meat is inspected by federal agents, though/although they would not inspect every animal to be slaughtered.

should read: Meat is inspected by federal agents, though/although they do not inspect every animal to be slaughtered.

Both sentences are fine. They really don't even have different shades of meaning. The difference between them is one of meter and rhythm rather than grammar. You would be fine either way.

Re: If it would make you feel more comfortable...

CalifJim — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:05:26 GMT

wingedfish
Do you think that the three forms are all acceptable?

No, not the last one. You need to change it.

I'll resign if it helps the Republicans. Show me that it helps (now) (in a general sort of way), and I'll do it.

I'll resign if it will help the Republicans. Show me that it will help in the future, and I'll do it.

I'll resign if it would help the Republicans. ??? Conflict between future and conditional.

I'd resign if it would help the Republicans. If you showed me that it would help if I were to do it, I would do it.

You're basically saying: Supposing (as an exercise of the imagination) it would help them, ... So you want to match that with I would (as an exercise of the imagination) do it -- not I will (definitely, I promise) do it. Presenting an imagined situation for consideration doesn't lead to a definite plan of action (will), but to an imagined plan of action (would). You normally stay completely in reality or completely in the world of envisioned situations; you don't mix the two.

wingedfish
The only difference lies in the degree of certainty?

Not really, as discussed above. Factors like time and the difference between 'real' and 'imagined' enter into it. There is no single factor that uniformly explains all differences between will and would.

Re: Using the past to refer to future

Anonymous — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 05:42:04 GMT

Thank you. I was looking at some notes I made from the Englishpage.com website on its Conditional Tutorial some years back and I found this as an example of Future Unreal Conditional + Continuous on it:

If I were waiting there next week when he gets off the plane, he would be totally surprised.

What is the difference between this and "If you were going to *** Museum tomorrow"??

came <--> were to came

akdom — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:00:44 GMT

(1). My mother would be annoyed if I came home late.
(2). My mother would be annoyed if I were to come home late.

What's the difference between this two usages?

I know (1) is "Conditional Sentences Type 2", which is if + simple Past, ..., which describes that it's possible but very unlikely, that the condition will be fulfilled.

But, I'm unfamilar with the "were to" form.

Re: Reported speech?

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:30:13 GMT

I think it comes down to what you intended to say/convey, mixing tenses, and understanding the difference between 'will' and 'would.' If you go strictly off of your premise that there's a person seeking to buy a pen from you and you'll have the final say, then you must use 'would'--'will' means it is a definite that's set to occur in the future (whereas 'would' is conditional).