conditional tense

MONSOON

User since 2008
Posts: 4

2 Jan. 2009

WELL, THAT'S IS PIECE OF CAKE

Wilptz

User since 2007
Posts: 7

13 Dec. 2008

Well ... "should" is'nt use any more in conditional tense. I learnd " should, would, would " at school 45 years ago. But now, " would, would, would " is the usual language. And " should " is used for the conditional of " must" to translate the french verb " je devrais"

So " I would get a divorce " is " je divorcerais" and " I should get a divorce " is " je devrais divorcer.

Wilptz

User since 2007
Posts: 7

4 Dec. 2008

Many thanks for your explanations and commentaries. It's like an idiom.

I'm learning English and I'll ask my teacher. I'll send you her answer.

Thank you

Wilptz

User since 2007
Posts: 7

29 Nov. 2008

Hello,

"If I were you, I would get a divorce". Is also correct to use " I should get a divorce" because " I should" is the first person in conditional ?

Thank you

AhQ ['a: kiu]

User since 2006
Posts: 2715

30 Nov. 2008

Please, read, last but one paragraph, ...Just as if it was said: ...

AhQ ['a: kiu]

User since 2006
Posts: 2715

30 Nov. 2008

My grammar knowledge is slim to none. Since I hope some grammarian, the kind of a Silky, will come and give a hand. Nevertheless I can't help giving my opinion on your issue.

First up, I'd never say "If I were you, I 'should' get a divorce." even though the grammatical structure isn't wrong. The reason is probably idiomatic, founded of the way the language is running through ages.
Just like 'shall' declined in the everyday speech to be restricted to some particular expressions, should - past of shall used as a conditional - has also set back along the years.

After or before "If I were you", I am used to hearing "I would..."
I would quicken my pace if I were you.
If I were you, I would work harder.

To my mind, even in your tip which is somehow a piece of advice, 'would' should prevail against 'should'. Let's say I think so.
I would start earlier, if I were in your position.
If I were as dumb as you seem to be, I would shut up.

Now what about this one:
You would work a bit harder if you were lagging behind.
You should work a bit harder if you were lagging behind.
If this last sentence is correct - is it? I dunno - hasn't it got a different shade of meaning? Doesn't the modal auxiliary insist on the obligation, commitment or necessity? Just as it was said:
You ought to work a bit harder if you were lagging behind.

Looking forward to further explanations.
Thanks in advance.

[CW]

My grammar knowledge is slim to none. Since I hope some grammarian, the kind of a Silky, will come and give a hand. Nevertheless I can't help giving my opinion on your issue.  
 
 
 First up, I'd never say "If I were you, I 'should' get a divorce." even though the grammatical structure isn't wrong. The reason is probably idiomatic, founded of the way the language is running through ages. 
 Just like 'shall' declined in the everyday speech to be restricted to some particular expressions, should - past of shall used as a conditional - has also set back along the years.  
 
 
 After or before "If I were you", I am used to hearing "I would..." 
 I would quicken my pace if I were you. 
 If I were you, I would work harder.  
 
 
 To my mind, even in your tip which is somehow a piece of advice, 'would' should prevail against 'should'. Let's say I think so. 
 I would start earlier, if I were in your position. 
 If I were as dumb as you seem to be, I would shut up.  
 
 
 Now what about this one: 
 You would work a bit harder if you were lagging behind. 
 You should work a bit harder if you were lagging behind. 
 If this last sentence is correct - is it? I dunno - hasn't it got a different shade of meaning? Doesn't the modal auxiliary insist on the obligation, commitment or necessity? Just as it was said: 
 You ought to work a bit harder if you were lagging behind.  
 
 
 Looking forward to further explanations. 
 Thanks in advance.  
 
 
 [CW]

6 comments

New comment