Ive waited to discuss the most important of our modal auxiliaries, the word that is the past tense of will, and also therefore the marker for our conditional tenses: would.
We call em conditional because they hold true only if certain conditions are met. Typically, we have a contrary-to-fact statement in one clause (which grammarians used to call the protasis ) and the conditional in the next (which grammarians used to call the apodosis ):
Mr. Priscian, said the doctor, Im afraid you are suffering from a compressed apodosis, just between the neck and the spine.
Oh dear, I knew I shouldnt have gone cliff jumping! But cant you stretch it out again?
Well, Mr. Priscian, if we knew how to do that, we would give you a couple of turns on the rack and send you straight home with some pills. As it is, the best we can do is alleviate the symptoms.
And thats your best protasis?
Had I a better one, Id certainly tell you.
For a contrary-to-fact statement set in the past, we use the double-past (past perfect, pluperfect) in one clause (in the subjunctive mood), and the conditional perfect in the other:
If I had known what I know now, I would never have trusted Mr. Capone with my lifes savings.
Very often we use the conditional when the conditions themselves are implicit and unexpressed:
I wouldnt do that (if I were you).
I wouldnt do that (if you paid me a million dollars).
I wouldnt do that (under any imaginable conditions).
I wouldnt do that (for love or money).
I wouldnt do that (unless you promised me you wouldnt tell: that is, if you did not promise me that you would not tell under any imaginable conditions).
Sometimes would is used as the past subjunctive of will, to express a present wish:
What would you like, sir?
Would that I had that villain in my grasp!
Would you be seated?
The funny thing about would: the silent l does belong there: Middle English wolde (German wollte ). But it does not belong in could. It snuck into that word by analogy with would and should. It should be coud, and would have been, but who coud be bothered about it during the Hundred Years War?
You have a decision to make: double or nothing.
For this week only, a generous supporter has offered to fully match all new and increased donations to First Things up to $60,000.
In other words, your gift of $50 unlocks $100 for First Things, your gift of $100 unlocks $200, and so on, up to a total of $120,000. But if you don’t give, nothing.
So what will it be, dear reader: double, or nothing?
Make your year-end gift go twice as far for First Things by giving now.