+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.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
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!
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
I'd appreciate it if you could check the following thread too:

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