[Grammar] There is no certainty that the president's removal would end the civil war.

[kadioguy]

a. There is no certainty that the president's removal would end the civil war.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/certainty?q=certainty

b. There’s no certainty that he’ll remember.
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/certainty

------------------

Why do (a) use "would" and (b) use "will", while they are both "there is"?

 

[jutfrank]

Could you explain further what's troubling you about this?

What's the problem with using there is? How do you think it is related to the choice of modal verb?

 

[kadioguy]

Could you explain further what's troubling you about this?

What's the problem with using there is? How do you think it is related to the choice of modal verb?

My question is that I don't know how to choose the modal verb. In post #1 I meant to say that why "there is no certainty that subject + would/will + verb" both work.

What does "would" there mean? What does "will" there mean?

 

[tedmc]

I think certainty goes with will, implying certainty, and not would which implies probability.

 

[jutfrank]

What does "would" there mean? What does "will" there mean?

This then is a general question about the differences between will and would.

Do you remember what we've said before about the distinction between real and unreal possibilities?

 

[kadioguy]

I think certainty goes with will, implying certainty, and not would which implies probability.

Thank you, tedmc.

This then is a general question about the differences between will and would.

Do you remember what we've said before about the distinction between real and unreal possibilities?

Yes.

a. There is no certainty that the president's removal would end the civil war.

b. There’s no certainty that he’ll remember.

So the "would" part (not include the "There is no certainty" part) in (a) means that it is not sure whether the president's removal can end the civil war; the "will" part (not include the "There is no certainty" part) in (b) means that it is sure that he can remember. Am I right?

PS - Which does "between real and unreal possibilities" mean?

1. "between a real possibility and a unreal possibility"

2. "between real possibilities and unreal possibilities"?

I guess (1). (Rethink: Maybe it means (2) :-?)

 

[jutfrank]

So the "would" part (not include the "There is no certainty" part) in (a) means that it is not sure whether the president's removal can end the civil war; the "will" part (not include the "There is no certainty" part) in (b) means that it is sure that he can remember. Am I right?

I don't think so, no. The difference is the kind of possibility, not the degree of certainty.

PS - Which does "between real and unreal possibilities" mean?

1. "between a real possibility and a unreal possibility"

2. "between real possibilities and unreal possibilities"?

I guess (1). (Rethink: Maybe it means (2) :-?)

2

 

[kadioguy]

The difference is the kind of possibility, not the degree of certainty.

I see. Let me try again.

a. There is no certainty that the president's removal would end the civil war.

b. There’s no certainty that he’ll remember.

The blue part in (a) is unreal, that is to say, the president will not leave.

The blue part in (b) is real, that is to say, he will remember.

Am I right?

 

[jutfrank]

No, that's even worse.

Sentence a. is talking about the removal of the president as hypothetical. That's what I mean by 'unreal'.

In contrast, b. is talking about a real future situation, not a merely hypothetical one. We don't know whether he'll remember or not, but either him remembering or him not remembering will really happen.

There are two worlds—the real world, which relates to objective reality, and the subjective world of the imagination, which exists only in people's minds. Language talks about both worlds. When I use the terms 'real' and 'unreal', this is what I'm talking about.

The phrase There is no certainty means the same thing in both sentences. The speaker is saying that the respective results (ending the war and him remembering) cannot be guaranteed.

 

[kadioguy]

a. There is no certainty that the president's removal would end the civil war.

(a) means that "the president's removal" is only a hypothesis, just in our minds, but even if it was true, we would not know whether that would end the civil war.

b. There’s no certainty that he’ll remember.

(b) means that either "he will remember" or "he will not remember" will really happen, but we don't know which will.

-------

Do I understand them correctly?

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, you've understood post #9 correctly.

Bear in mind that what I've told you is a rather simple account. In actual use, there may be complicating factors which could affect the meaning. It's not easy to be completely confident about what a sentence means when you don't have context.