The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

would Options
Penpen
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:04:55 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/15/2016
Posts: 170
Neurons: 663
How does "would" work here?

Asker : Does "violoation" take "the" or not in this sentence?
‘The company has settled
THE violations of the US
Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act’ or
"The company has
settled violations of the US
Foreign Corrupt Practices Art"

Answer : "The" would be used when we have mentioned the violations before. Without "the" it means some violations that we haven't specified yet.
thar
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:56:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 14,702
Neurons: 58,100
It is hypothetical - you haven't used it yet!


If you were to write this sentence having previously mentioned xx, you would use 'the'.

Penpen
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:40:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/15/2016
Posts: 170
Neurons: 663
Thanks, thar. I want to understand the use of "hypothetical" would. Does "hypothetical" mean "talking about something that hasn't happened"?

How about this one? Is "would" used to show hypothetical too?

We use the phrase "soft penalty" to describe a situation when a referee gives a penalty that should not really have been given; perhaps a player had dived or pretended to win the penalty. The opposite of soft penalty would be a stonewall penalty which is a clear penalty with no doubt attached to it.
thar
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 11:47:10 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 14,702
Neurons: 58,100
It is not so much something that hasn't happened, in this case.
I think there are two factors.
1
It is something that isn't 'real'. There is no absolute opposite to this idea. Technically, the opposite of giving a soft penalty is not giving a soft penalty. But that is not a useful definition!
What they really mean is 'the other end of the range'.

2
You have to understand that saying

the opposite of x is....

sounds a bit too opinionated, arrogant. When asked to give a fact, it is English idiom to say 'that would be..' rather than 'that is'.
eg
What is the capital of England?

You could answer with the bare fact:
London

Or give a sentence
That would be London.

What does not sound natural to say would be
It is London.

Don't ask me why. It is just the way you say things.

But this is my opinion. It may not be shared by others! Whistle
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.