Grammar Lesson of the Day: The Big Modal, would

I’ve 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.

Word of the Day 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, “I’m afraid you are suffering from a compressed apodosis, just between the neck and the spine.”
“Oh dear, I knew I shouldn’t have gone cliff jumping!  But can’t 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 that’s your best protasis?”
“Had I a better one, I’d 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 life’s savings.

Very often we use the conditional when the conditions themselves are implicit and unexpressed:

I wouldn’t do that (if I were you).
I wouldn’t do that (if you paid me a million dollars).
I wouldn’t do that (under any imaginable conditions).
I wouldn’t do that (for love or money).
I wouldn’t do that (unless you promised me you wouldn’t 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?

Dear Reader,

Can I be direct with you?

War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.

First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.

But we can’t do it without readers like you.

Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.


Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.

Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.

GIVE NOW

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.

Next
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

The Church in the Age of Therapy

Matthew Loftus

In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…

Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot

Anna Farrow

On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…

The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen

Mike Aquilina

Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…