+0

Which usage of 'would' is it here in the sentence "But there would be no victor"?


It's from the trailer of the new game called Elden Ring(https://youtu.be/K_03kFqWfqs )

"The conqueror of the stars, General Radahn and the Blade of Miquella, Malenia the Severed.
These two were the mightiest to remain, and locked horns in combat.
But there would be no victor.

And so, we inhabit a fractured world, awaiting the arrival of the Elden Lord."


I looked it up in the dictionary and narrowed its usages down to these three.

1. used to indicate what someone said or thought about what was going to happen or be done
-She said (that) she would help me with my project.

2. used to talk about something that always or often happened in the past
-When my friend still lived here, we would eat lunch together every day.

3. used to talk about what someone was willing to do or what something was able to do:
-The car wouldn't start this morning.

+0
kind LeecWhich usage of 'would' is it here

Usage 1.

Future of the past.


Compare:

There will be no victor. Future of the present. Like "There is not going to be a victor".

There would be no victor. Future of the past. Like "There was not going to be a victor".

CJ

Comments  
kind LeecWhich usage of 'would' is it here in the sentence "But there would be no victor"?

It is simply the past form of "will". If they were fighting now, you would say "There will be no victor." Since they were fighting in the past, it has to be "There would be no victor."

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
kind Leec"The conqueror of the stars, General Radahn and the Blade of Miquella, Malenia the Severed.These two were the mightiest to remain, and locked horns in combat.But there would be no victor.

I'm not sure, but in my understanding, I think it's the second usage because it's a story. Before starting the game, they usually give a brief introduction about the story and the events that had happened in the past. In the past, after their fight, there would be no victor; that's why now, we inhabit a fractured world, and we (the teller) are waiting for someone's arrival.

 CalifJim's reply was promoted to an answer.
CalifJim
kind LeecWhich usage of 'would' is it here

Usage 1.

Future of the past.


Compare:

There will be no victor. Future of the present. Like "There is not going to be a victor".

There would be no victor. Future of the past. Like "There was not going to be a victor".

CJ

I just want to make sure of my understanding. The first usage says: "1. used to indicate what someone said or thought about what was going to happen or be done"

In that game, those two persons were fighting in the past. So the teller of the story must have known the result of the fight (there was no victor), and he told us about it. Therefore, the fight and the result of the fight truly happened in the past. It's not that he (the teller) just thought/believed that there was no victor.

Is that correct?

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
MoonriseIn that game, those two persons were fighting in the past. So the teller of the story must have known the result of the fight (there was no victor), and he told us about it. Therefore, the fight and the result of the fight truly happened in the past. ...

Correct. The future of the past can be used here even though it is not in the context of reported speech (or thought).

You might say that there are (at least) two 'flavors' of future of the past. The example presented by the OP is a sort of historical usage, where the historian (i.e., narrator) already knows what was going to happen.

[ The key word in the definition of usage 1 is "said". We take "said" to include "wrote", as when writing a history (i.e., telling a story). It doesn't have to be only "thought". In other words, the result can be known, which is what we have in the given example.]

CJ

Clear, thanks a lot for clarifying it well.