I'm back with one of my favourite topics.
From the afterword (1980) by David Lodge to "The British Museum Is Falling Down".
"Nevertheless it would be idle to pretend that I would have thought of writing the novel if we had not, in the early years of our married life, fould (like most of our married Catholic friends) that the only method of family planning sanctioned by the Church, known as Rhythm or the Safe Method, was in practice neither rhythmical nor safe, and therefore a cuase of considerable stress".
Ten pages after:
"The mistery of the disappearing review copies was never solved. If the incident had occured at a later stage of my literary career I think I should have made more fuss; but at the time my dominant emotion was one of relief that I had not, after all, been written off by the reviewing establishment".
"I would have thought", "I should have made". I'd have written either "would" or "should" in both cases.
Do you think the two cases differ somehow?
Bye, FB
1 2
I'm back with one of my favourite topics. From the afterword (1980) by David Lodge to "The British Museum Is ... have made". I'd have written either "would" or "should" in both cases. Do you think the two cases differ somehow?

I was in the middle of writing a reply to this when I re-read the second quote, and found I have misunderstood it. I thought they differed, but in fact, I would prefer "would" in both cases.
To me, "should have done something" connotes "ought to have done", but the author of the second quote is not using it in that way.

But I should think it is more subtle than that :-)

Cheers,
Tony

Tony Mountifield
Work: (Email Removed) - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: (Email Removed) - http://tony.mountifield.org
"I would have thought", "I should have made". I'd have ... both cases. Do you think the two cases differ somehow?

To me, "should have done something" connotes "ought to have done", but the author of the second quote is not using it in that way.

I understand that usage of "should", but I don't see why Lodge used "would" and "should" for the same type of sentence.
Bye, FB
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
To me, "should have done something" connotes "ought to have done", but the author of the second quote is not using it in that way.

I understand that usage of "should", but I don't see why Lodge used "would" and "should" for the same type of sentence. Bye, FB

In a more formal and old-fashioned form of British english there is a similarity in meaning between between will and would on the one hand and shall and should on teh otehr. In this particular usage "should" doesn't mean the same as "ought to". However, since this form of British english differs from both the Irish form of English I grew up with and my present idiolect I always get confused when I try to explain it.

I'm still hoping that somebody else more familiar with this usage will try to explain. If not, I suppose I could look it up ... ;-)

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
In a more formal and old-fashioned form of British english there is a similarity in meaning between between will and ... more familiar with this usage will try to explain. If not, I suppose I could look it up ... ;-)

Sorry, that's not what I'm asking. I perfectly (well, 'perfectly'...) understand that usage of 'should', but I thought that if one chooses to use 'should' according to the traditional rules (to express a conditional fact where will is not involved, e.g. 'I should like', 'We should have come, if we had been able', but 'They begged me but I wouldn't come', 'I won't listen to this nonsense!'), he can't use "would" with the same meaning, eight or nine pages before.
When I read:
"Nevertheless it would be idle to pretend that I would have thought of writing the novel if we had not fould that the only method of family planning sanctioned by the Church was in practice neither rhythmical nor safe "
in which will has nothing to do, I thought: Lodge must be using 'would' as most of the English people seem to do, ignoring the fact that will is not involved (that is, ignoring the traditional difference between 'I will' and 'I shall', which, I'm aware, is no longer even recognized by most of the native speakers, especially Americans).
Then I read, eight or nine pages after:
'If the incident had occured at a later stage of my literary career I think I should have made more fuss'
in which, again, will is not involved. What I wonder is: why did he use 'would' and 'should' for the same type of sentence? He could have used either "would" (as most of the native speakers, including you) or "should" for both.
Bye, FB
in which, again, will is not involved. What I wonder is: why did heuse 'would' and 'should' for the same type of sentence? He could have used either "would" (as most of the native speakers, including you) or"should" for both.

I gave up any hope of understanding such things some years ago when I learnt that the distinction between "will" and "shall" works in opposite directions in England and Scotland, so that "I shall drown and nobody will save me" means totally different things either side of the border. I don't know whether that's true, but it sure confused me!

Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.yk
Old grammarians never die, they simply parse away.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
In a more formal and old-fashioned form of British english ... not, I suppose I could look it up ... ;-)

Sorry, that's not what I'm asking. I perfectly (well, 'perfectly'...) understand that usage of 'should', but I thought that if ... of sentence? He could have used either "would" (as most of the native speakers, including you) or "should" for both.

I can only suggest that you write to Lodge and ask him. To be quite honest I probably wouldn't have noticed this if I'd been reading the book.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
I can only suggest that you write to Lodge and ask him.

Should I? Why not, he might find me so silly as to create a new character based on me.
To be quite honest I probably wouldn't have noticed this if I'd been reading the book.

As a non-native English speaker, a pretty pedant one, I tend notice a lot of irrelevant things. (witty face) Even so, Lodge must have noticed it while writing that (you may be absent-minded while you are reading, but when you are writing a book?), then I should think there's a reason.
Bye, FB
}As a non-native English speaker, a pretty pedant one, I tend notice a lot }of irrelevant things.
That's a pretty pedantic one.
{R}
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Show more