+0
Hello,

Would you please explain the usage of 'would' in the following sentence:

"Zamenhof's goal was to create an easy-to-learn and politically neutral language that transcends nationality and would foster peace and international understanding between people with different regional and/or national languages."

and does it have the same meaning as:

"Zamenhof's goal was to create an easy-to-learn and politically neutral language that transcends nationality and fosters peace and international understanding between people with different regional and/or national languages."

Is the usage of 'would' in the above sentence related to 'was' in 'Zamenhof's goal was'?

Thanks
Comments  
Yes, I think you understand it very well.
Thanks for your reply. So if we change 'was' to 'is', is it still correct to say:

"Zamenhof's goal is to create an easy-to-learn and politically neutral language that transcends nationality and would foster peace and international understanding between people with different regional and/or national languages."

I don't get the subtle difference between "would foster" and "foster" in the above sentence.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
I think this is the expected:

Zamenhof's goal is to create an easy-to-learn and politically neutral language that transcends nationality and will foster peace and international understanding between people with different regional and/or national languages.
"will foster" sounds natural? "fosters" doesn't still sound better?
They are both fine!
Try out our live chat room.
I'd appreciate it if you could check the following thread too:

http://www.EnglishForward.com/English/AddingWouldFollowingSentence/bbkkbn/post.htm#sc1555525