Chiff and Fipple Forums

First of all, to me this is more a matter of style than a question of proper or improper usage, but all the same I'm interested in what people have to say. Example:

"What was that loud noise?"
"That would be a car crash."

"Now what's that wailing?"
"And that will be the police."

I could have used more the controlled language of "is", but instead I find myself using "would/will be" (probably more than I should, if it matters), and mainly in conversation. I have thin rationalisations and loose methods for this habit, but for now I think we can skip those. And don't get me wrong; my use of "is" is probably more my norm, but it does share the table.

C'mon. I'm trolling you language mavens out there, and you know who you are.

Unless you know for certain (in the examples given) that it was a car crash or the police (as opposed to an ambulance or something), "would be" implies a certain amount of presumption, and is entirely appropriate here.

http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/threa ... ional-quot

Right. Although you'll notice that I said "will" in the case of the police but strictly speaking, without seeing, I have no certainty that the ambulance didn't get there first. Whatever the truth of my assumption, for me the use of "will be" indicates a predicted outcome, whereas "would be" indicates direct information, and is more all-purpose. Both carry a relaxed tone for me.

Predicted outcome:

*knock on the door*
"Ah, that will be the landlord."
"How do you know?"
"Well, I don't, but rent's due, this is about the time he stops by for it, and I don't get many visitors."

Faced with a certainty such as the drink in my hand, the exchange might go thusly:

"What's that you have there?" (in context, Minnesotan for "Pardon me, but what cocktail are you drinking?")
"That would be a Blood In The Water." (don't know if it's particularly Minnesotan, but it suits because it ironically beats around the bush some)

"Will" in this case sits awkwardly. If we were talking about what drink is to come, I would use "will", but at least that makes some grammatic sense. In general, the whole form seems to particularly invite the demonstrative "that", and to a lesser extent "these", "those" "they", "such", etc.; usually, "it" would sit too awkwardly to be placed squarely within this idiom. But that's just how it is for me; of course I can't assume about others. Basically, I'm curious as to whether and how other people use this form, too. Why? I just get a wild hair sometimes.

I've not heard the "will" version used but, here in Texas, use of "that would be" presumes concrete knowledge, knowledge that the questioner should possess as well. If someone is pounding on the door, yelling "Open up, Police!" then, in answer to the question "What's that?" the following two answers are equivalent:

"That would be the police."

"That is the police, you dummy."

My versions are "that'd be" and "that'll be."

For me:
"What was that loud noise?"
"That would have been a car crash." Instead of "was".

"Now what's that wailing?"
"That will be the police." Yes, instead of "is".

For me, I think it depends who is using those constructions. Most of the time I probably wouldn't notice them when others use them. I never use them myself unless I'm doing so for sarcastic effect. "That would be the police," at least as said by me, would mean, "It's blindingly obvious that it's the police, dummy!" I do agree with what others have said, that there is something less certain when using the construction "will be" rather than "would be". So, "That will be the police," would mean, "It's blindingly obvious that that's the police, dummy. Probably."

(edit: I hadn't read the other responses before implying...looks like we're on the same page.)

The "would be"/"will be" forms carry with them an understood extra phrase, such as "a noise such as the one we are now hearing is usually."
Put another way, "That was a car crash," leaves no room for argument. "That would be a car crash," connotes that the speaker has reached a logical conclusion, but is allowing that if more data is presented, that conclusion could change.

benhall.1 wrote:I never use them myself unless I'm doing so for sarcastic effect. "That would be the police," at least as said by me, would mean, "It's blindingly obvious that it's the police, dummy!"

I might use it sarcastically too because it works for that, but I'm just as likely not to use it in sarcasm and that's where this becomes more a quirk of style. Going back to my example of the query about my drink, there was no sarcasm at all in my response. Mocking someone for what they could not possibly know makes you a dick, and I prefer to be one for better reasons than that.

It interests me that the "will be" form is prevalent in money transactions:

"How much for my stuff?"
"That will be three dollars, please."

Coffee wrote:My versions are "that'd be" and "that'll be."

Certainly. In speech I'm very likely to contract them. Sometimes not, though.

I wasn't at all implying that anyone else using the phrase(s) would be doing so for sarcastic effect; just that the only time I use it(them) is for sarcastic effect.

Right, I get that.

I just might be sarcastic over the obvious. I was explaining how in the case of the drink, sarcasm was impossible, at least for me, so the form doesn't carry sarcasm by definition. It's all in how you use it.

If I wanted to be a dick about it, here's how it would go:

"What's that you have there?" (same as before, asking about my drink)
"It's a drink."

But I'd only do that among friends. As you might guess, mine have thick skins.

The short answer is that use of is creates a definitive statement, while using would be makes a prediction. The difference is the degree of certainty.

~~

The longer answer is that, like many other indo-european languages english used to have, in the subjunctive, a way to inflect ordinary verbs to express doubt, or any state which is contrary to fact; ie things that are uncertain or that have not yet taken place.

However, English is in the process of losing its subjunctive, and the process is further along in the UK than it is in North America. I dunno what's happening in the Antipodes. Instead, we're awkwardly drafting modals [might, could, will, should...] to take over this duty.

If used deliberately I understand it as Wanderer and emelline suggest and s1mon explains.

In "How much for my stuff?" "That will be three dollars, please." I think it is referring to something that has not happened yet - handing over three dollars. So to be an answer to the question I guess the question should be understood as something like "How much will I be handing over in payment for my stuff."

david_h wrote:If used deliberately I understand it as Wanderer and emelline suggest and s1mon explains.

In "How much for my stuff?" "That will be three dollars, please." I think it is referring to something that has not happened yet - handing over three dollars. So to be an answer to the question I guess the question should be understood as something like "How much will I be handing over in payment for my stuff."

Ah now, I take that as being a different proposition entirely (wanted to say "different case" but, since we're talking about language, I thought that might be ambiguous).

The example you give there, David, strikes me as being a simple use of the future tense. As you say, it is a reference to something that hasn't happened yet, and is the usual meaning (or one of them, at any rate) of "will be". But it is not the same, IMO, as the construction which Nano is talking about, where "will be" is used as a substitute for "is", ie is used as if it were a construction in the present tense.

I almost exclusively use "would be" for hypothetical situations.
Example:
"You're pulling too far back on the string, and might break the bowstaff. That'd be bad."

"Will be" is predictive, but sometimes also with connotations of believing the stated eventuality to be unlikely.
Example:
"You really think you can hit that from here? That'll be the day..."

Por lo general, I try to be economical with speech. Thus I say "is" more often than the above, where apropos.