The following question is intended to be an example of a real conditional sentence ( first conditional)--not hypothetical. I would like to know whether to use "will" or "would" in this question:  If a naive person falls victim to a trickster, would/will you blame the person for being naive or the trickster for being a criminal?  As far as I understand, I should use "will," as "would" is only used for hypothetical situations. But, since my intention is not to talk about something that will happen in the future but something that is a possibility and can happen at any given time,  I think that "will" is not the best choice in the example sentence above, is it?  Or should I use "would" instead?
124059
Consider the following sentence with a first conditional:          If it rains tomorrow, I will go to the cinema.      All the examples of first conditionals that I found use "will" instead of "would." Is it possible to replace "will" with "would" while retaining the same exact meaning, i.e.,          If it rains tomorrow, I would go to the cinema.      Or, would I have to put the inflected verb in preterite form (as mentioned in ), like this:          If it rained tomorrow, I would go to the cinema.      [Edit 1: I clarified that I want to retain the same meaning among these examples.]  [Edit 2: Corrected silly mistake where the first example was the same as the second example.]
13038
1)So as promised by me , I would be doing it for you. 2)So as promised by me , I will be doing it for you. A person said first sentence to me , when I did the work he asked. What happens if he used will instead of would ? What is the difference in meaning between these two sentences?
99120
With reference to       None of the above sentences is strictly correct.      Neither of the above sentence/sentences is/are strictly correct.    The person has used  are with none. This contradicts above notion of using singular with none. Which is more correct?  The first sentence is perfectly fine, but I'm getting confused from the second sentence. In this sentence, how would we decide about antecedents? Can we use both sentence interchangeably?
109786
I _ meet my friend tomorrow.      Usually shall is used with first person: I and we. So, in the above sentence is it fair to use shall in the blank. Actually  my book mentioned the answer as Will, therefore I wanted to clarify. Thank you.
77121
I just would like to know if this sentence would be grammatically correct and in which cases should I use it:  I don't know when he is back instead of he will be back . I know the rule with when "no will" in most cases but we can say" please let me know when it will be available or when it is available"  If that's not correct let me know why please
25488
Consider the following sentence     It will/would rain tomorrow.   I understand "would" usually means something that is really improbable.  So "it would happen" means it might happen but it is very unlikely; while "it will happen" means it is going to happen  But what if I want to say      It will not happen?   Because the meaning of "it will not happen" represents something that is unlikely or, worse still, not going to happen, shouldn't it be more accurate to say "it would not happen"?  However, to contravene the aforesaid suggestion - if I am confident that the thing is not going to happen, should I use "will" to indicate the definite nature of my statement?  To further complicate the issue, what if I want to say     I think you will not be able to do it.    or      I think you would not be able to do it.    Which one is more accurate/correct,  given that "I think" already conveys a sense of "less than definite" and "will/would not be able to" conveys the same sense as "unlikely"?
115764
What is the difference between will and shall in modern spoken English?  For example I have the following sentences:     He will arrive on Tuesday.        He shall arrive on Tuesday.    Are there any rules specifying usage of will and shall?  Reopen note:  I looked at this question here:      But that question is about the use of the first person with will and shall. In addition one of the comments under here states that will and shall are NOT used in the same way in modern English. The linked-to question says they ARE. Which of these is correct and why?
103161
In my English reviewing paper, I have a multiple choices question like this:   "Henry ___ a rich man today if he had been more careful in the past".   I filled in "would have been" and my teacher confirmed that it was correct but when I looked up answers online, "would be" was also the correct answer.   If I use "would have been" then the sentence becomes a type 3 conditional sentence. If I use "would be" then the sentence becomes a mixed conditional sentence. Both of these options seem suitable so I'm pretty confused.  I have a pretty important test coming soon so could someone explain this to me please. If I use one rather than the other, will the meaning of the sentence change?
103895
Where to use "must/should/might/may/could/shouldn't  have "in a sentence?  We had in our book that "must+perfect infinitive" is used when we feel sure about sth in the past.And "might/may/could+perfect infinitive" should used when we think sth was possible but we aren't sure.And we should use "should+perfect infinitive" when we talk about past events that did not happen.  Now we had exercises about choosing them.Now I have some question.     1.How can we decide which one is  "may/might/could+perfect infinitive" when they are the same?      2.We had an exercise "Nobody answered the phone at the clinic.It................ closed early"      Here the answer written is "must have" instead of being probable we aren't sure then why did we use it?      And also we had "Sarah looks really pleased with herself.She ...............passed her driving test this morning" which gives the answer "must have"but we aren't sure.
72023
The NOAD reports the following notes about should and would:     The traditional rule is that should is used with first person pronouns (I and we), as in I said I should be late, and would is used with second and third persons (you, he, she, it, they), as in you didn't say you would be late. In practice, however, would is normally used instead of should in reported speech and conditional clauses: I said I would be late; if we had known, we would have invited her.   I thought that should and would really had a slightly different meaning. Am I wrong?
34570
I'm a bit familarized with conditional sentences. But the following sentences with 'should' and 'happen to' are quite confusing too me. They are:   If it should rain, I will stay at home. 2.If it should happen to rain, I'll stay at home   If it happens to rain, I'll stay at home.    What are the meaings of those sentences ? Do they all mean the same ? Thank you a lot in Advance for your answer.
113999
I have seen this sentence in an article on bbc, which is about how people lived thousands of years ago. &quot;When this Neolithic home was built, it would have had a cosy roof of turf..&quot; When I read it, I got confused. Because the fact seems as a simple past situation or guessing/assumption about something in the past. it simply gives information about a past event, eg &quot;when I was a child, I had a blue toy car. I have been making a lot of research on whether or not this structure &quot;would+have+past participle&quot; could be used instead of the simple past or &quot;must+have+past participle&quot;, but I could not find any satisfying explanation. Almost all grammer contents cover this structure is used when we imagine the opposite of what actually happened in the past eg. &quot;referring to a missed opportunity&quot; (eg. &quot;if you had come to the party, you would have seen Tom.&quot;), But, in this case of this sentence, &quot;type 3 conditional&quot; is irrelevant. It is not an if sentence,  It simply gives information about how this house was like or was probably like when it was built long ago. Just like it would be If and old lady would want to tell about &quot;how she was like when she was a child years ago. she would simply say &quot;when I was a child, I had long curly hair.**. So &quot;when I was a child, I would have had long curly hair.&quot; would be wrong. So, my question is: 1-Does this structure &quot;would+have+past participle&quot; completely replace simple past sentences? or can be it be used instead of simple past? 2- If this structure was simply used because the author was not %100 sure about the fact as it was a long long time ago -so he wanted to make a guess or assumption, why did he not simply use &quot;must+have+past participle&quot; or &quot;it was likely that blah blah&quot; which must be used for guessing or assumptions about past happenings. Would it not have made more sense if it was like: &quot;When this Neolithic home was built, it must have had a cosy roof of turf.
1347
Can you please explain this to me?          Could you please explain this to me?   I am unable to figure out which to use which situation. I did google, and some posts say they are both the same, even if the second one is more formal. Other posts say could is the past tense of can, but in the above example, I don't think could is used as past tense of can.  What is correct way to use these words?
39083
I have often read people using sentences like...     Assume you are given a ball.   in place of      Assume that you are given a ball.   While both sound correct while speaking, the first sentence does not sound quite right while writing. Is it correct to use the first sentence in writing?
100893
Recently I asked about   I shall come, not will  whether it could be used instead of  I will definitely come, not maybe  How I came to such a question.  Here   I asked about "Shall I win?" pointing that it could have some variants of understanding:  1) Shall I win? = Should I win? (suggestion)  2) Shall I win? = Will I win? (archaic with 1st person)  3) Shall I win? = is it 100% that I will win? (predestination\inevitability)  The excellent guy Mixolydian said either variant was possible, that it didn't matter what person you used "shall" with, it could have this "predestination\inevitability" anyway. Out of this we're getting that nowadays we can use "will" for simple future actions and "shall" for almost predicted (almost 100% surety of happening) future actions.  If I want to say to someone:  Don't be afraid, I will come anyway.  Don't get panicked, I will definitely come  Be sure, I will come in any case  I can use "shall" for it meanining an action into which I will put 100% effort:  I shall come!  And what if my original sentence is  Don't doubt, I will definitely come, not maybe or probably  Can I use  I shall come, not will  pointing that "shall" guarantees me putting all my strengths into it while "will" doesn't give any assuarance that I will do everything to finally come.  As I understood, it wasn't very easy to ask such a question because English was different everywhere - US, UK, Australie, Ireland etc. I heard it was acceptabse to use even "thee\thou" in Ireland or somewhere like that while all other world has already forgotten such words...
96044
I am talking about events taking place in the known future:     Would it be okay if I'll confirm around 3 pm?   or should it be      Would it be okay if I'd confirm around 3 pm?   What is the difference and which one is correct? Why?
32333
I hope someone, once and for all, can clarify (with examples) the difference in usage of will vs. would vs. would have vs. will have.