[Grammar] This may/might/could be a normal way to express that meaning

[NAL123]

Suppose someone asks me about the status of a sentence in spoken English; ie, whether it is natural or not and I go:

1) This is a normal way to express that meaning. (this = your sentence)
2) This would be a normal way to express that meaning.
3) This will be a normal way to express that meaning.
4) This should be a normal way to express that meaning.
5) This may/might/could be a normal way to express that meaning.
6) This can be a normal way to express that meaning.

I think sentence 6) is not possible, but the rest more or less mean the same thing, with different degrees of probability. Am I right?

 

[tedmc]

I think 1) is the natural way to express one's opinion, though 2) is also acceptable.

 

[emsr2d2]

1 fits your scenario perfectly.
I would expect to see #2 before a better suggestion.

Student: I wrote this sentence: XXXX. Is my sentence natural?
Teacher: It's OK but this would be the normal way of expressing it: YYYY.

 

[NAL123]

Student: I wrote this sentence: XXXX. Is my sentence natural?
Teacher: It's OK but this would be the normal way of expressing it: YYYY.

Can I use "will be" in place of "would be" above?

 

[GoesStation]

Can I use "will be" in place of "would be" above?

No. You're expressing a conditional, not a certainty.

 

[emsr2d2]

No, you could use "This would be" or "This is".

 

[NAL123]

No. You're expressing a conditional, not a certainty.

Do you mean using "will be" would predict the future? Like:

It's OK but this will be the normal way of expressing it: YYYY.

~I'm predicting that this is going to be the normal way of....in the future.

 

[GoesStation]

Do you mean using "will be" would predict the future? Like:

It's OK but this will be the normal way of expressing it: YYYY.

~I'm predicting that this is going to be the normal way of....in the future.

Yes. There aren't many contexts where that particular sentence would be natural, because it's predicting a change in the language.

 

[emsr2d2]

We see this error a lot from learners on the forum. Sometimes, when we tell someone that a sentence is incorrect, they suggest a new version and say "Will this be better?" instead of "Would this be better?" or "Is this better?"

 

[NAL123]

No, you could use "This would be" or "This is".

One more question:

Another aspect of Cockney is the glottal stop. Words like "computer" with a "t" in it, the "t" is not pronounced. So, a lot of Cockney speakers would say, "compuer."

I think "a lot of Cockney speakers will say..." does not sound correct. Am I right?

 

[NAL123]

'Will' is possible there. It expresses certainty about something habitual, not futurity.

Okay that is one way of looking at it. Can we look at it from this angle too:

If we ask Cockney speakers to pronounce the word "computer", a lot of them will say, "compuer." (a first conditional sentence)

 

[jutfrank]

Okay that is one way of looking at it. Can we look at it from this angle too:

If we ask Cockney speakers to pronounce the word "computer", a lot of them will say, "compuer." (a first conditional sentence)

All you've done there, though, is identify the form of the sentence. Piscean was telling you something about meaning, not form.

In your sentence above, the use of will is to show a tendency of Cockney speech. Because the association of a certain speech pattern (pronouncing 'computer' as 'compuer') with a certain speech group (Cockney speakers) is very strong, the use of 'compuer' is highly predictable among those speakers.

 

[NAL123]

If you leave ice cream n the sun, it melts/will melt. Factual conditional.

I think this type of combination is not possible:

When you leave ice cream in the sun, it would melt.

Am I right?

 

[GoesStation]

I think this type of combination is not possible:

When you leave ice cream in the sun, it would melt.

Am I right?

Yes.

 

[emsr2d2]

I think this type of combination is not possible:

When you leave ice cream in the sun, it would melt.

Am I right?

Yes, you're right. That combination doesn't work.

If you left ice cream in the sun, it would melt.
If you leave ice cream in the sun, it will melt.
If you leave ice cream in the sun, it melts.
When you leave ice cream in the sun, it melts.

 

[NAL123]

If you left ice cream in the sun, it would melt.

What kind of conditional is the sentence above? It uses "ice cream" in a general way in the IF-clause, which indicates the conditional clause is a general one, but, on the other hand, it uses "left", the past tense form of "leave". Is it a second conditional/hypothetical conditional?

 

[NAL123]

Yes.

Hypothetical conditions.

To make things clearer for me,

a) If you leave ice cream in the sun, it will melt. (If = when/whenever)
b) If you leave ice cream in the sun, it melts. (If = when/whenever)

Both a) and b) are "Factual conditionals" or "zero conditionals", because the "ice cream" refers to ice cream in general, not a specific ice cream and thus both have general IF-clauses.

c) If you leave the ice cream in the sun, it will melt. (If ≠ when/whenever)

In c), the use of the definite article "the" indicates we are talking about a specific ice cream, and the possibility of a future action. Therefore c) is a first conditional.

d) If you left ice cream in the sun, it melted/would melt. (If = when/whenever; would = used to)

Sentence d) refers to a consequence that was generally true in the past and like a) and b), the conditional clause here is a general one. So this falls under the realm of "factual/zero conditionals".

e) If you left the ice cream in the sun, it would melt. (If ≠ when/whenever; would ≠ used to)

The IF-clause in sentence e) talks about an action that might possibly take place in the future and like sentence c) above, it is talking about a specific ice cream. So it is an example of "hypothetical conditionals/2nd conditionals."

f) If you left ice cream in the sun, it would melt.

I'm confused about sentence f). As you said in your last post (#19), the sentence above is acceptable as a "hypothetical conditional". But I see that it uses "ice cream" in a general sense, and thus it has a general conditional clause.

Q: Could you please elaborate on sentence f)? Is it a "timeless" hypothetical sentence? (the link that you provided in #19 above refers to "hypothetical/2nd conditionals" as future conditionals.)

The link in post #19 provides an example:

Speaker A: The main problem if we were marooned in the Arctic would be water. We’d eventually die of thirst.

Speaker B: Not if we had some method of generating heat. If we heated ice, it would melt, and so we’d have an unlimited water supply.

 

[Rover_KE]

One more question:

Another aspect of Cockney is the glottal stop. Words like "computer" with a "t" in it, the "t" is not pronounced. So, a lot of Cockney speakers would say, "compuer."

It's not as simple as that—there's a tiny gap between compu and er, called a glottal stop.

I think "a lot of Cockney speakers will say..." does not sound correct. Am I right?

You're right.