was/is

No, "would" is not always conditional, but it is conditional *in that context*. "Will you do me a favor?" is not conditional, because it's obviously future tense: "Will you do me a favor [in the immediate future]?" Unlike the supposed "past tense" construction, here there is obviously a connection to the future. On the other hand, I *have* demonstrated a connection between "could" and a condition, whereas no connection has been demonstrated with the past tense.

Also: can you show me how it ISN'T conditional? I already stated that the burden of proof is not on me anymore. I already presented a list of evidence. I shouldn't need to make any further arguments until my position is weakened. I already pointed out that the conditional mood is used the same way in other languages. How many times do I have to point that out before that counts for something? If it's conditional in Spanish, how is exactly the same construction not conditional in English?

- Kef

<No, "would" is not always conditional, but it is conditional *in that context*. "Will you do me a favor?" is not conditional, because it's obviously future tense: "Will you do me a favor [in the immediate future]?" >

Don't know where you get you grammar education from , but it could be off a cereal box.

Look! It is not time or conditionality that separates the the choices in these sets:


Any chance of you doing me a favour next week?
Can you do me a favour next week?
Could you do me a favour next week?
Will you do me a favour next week?
Would you do me a favour next week?

? Any chance of you doing me a favour and passing me the hammer?
Can you do me a favour and pass the hammer?
Could you do me a favour and pass the hammer?
Will you do me a favour and pass the hammer?
Would you do me a favour and pass the hammer?
...

What was the name, sir?
Did you want to try that dress on, madam?

< If it's conditional in Spanish, how is exactly the same construction not conditional in English? >

Because they are different languages.

furrykef, try Googling:

"remote form" verb

"If it's conditional in Spanish, how is exactly the same construction not conditional in English?"

Tell us, furry, do Spanish and English use the present perfect in the same way?

> Don't know where you get you grammar education from , but it could be off a cereal box.

Yes, ad hominem fallacies are always a very effective logical argument. *rolls eyes*

<< < If it's conditional in Spanish, how is exactly the same construction not conditional in English? > >>

<< Because they are different languages. >>

A good argument if there were anything different about usage in this case. There isn't. Both languages are using the same construction for the same purpose.

<< furrykef, try Googling:

"remote form" verb >>

In other words, an argument that it's neither "conditional" nor "past", but "remote". I'm willing to accept that. But "remote" and "past" aren't the same thing.

> Tell us, furry, do Spanish and English use the present perfect in the same way?

Spanish and English both have forms that are called the "present perfect", but they're not used in exactly the same sets of circumstances. Spanish and English both have forms called the "conditional mood" (although Spanish uses a conjugation and English requires an auxiliary verb), and they also aren't used in exactly the same sets of circumstances. But we can agree on what's called the "present perfect" in both languages. Apparently, we can't agree on what's called "conditional" in English.

- Kef

<Apparently, we can't agree on what's called "conditional" in English. >

Apparently you are trying to force English into Spanish thinking.

Wake up! Get a life.

> Apparently you are trying to force English into Spanish thinking.

No, I'm simply pointing out that we have two languages that are doing the same thing and that makes an argument for calling the phenomenon the same thing in both languages.

> Get a life.

Good idea. I don't need to waste time arguing with people who refuse to back up their opinions. I'm done.

- Kef

<Good idea. I don't need to waste time arguing with people who refuse to back up their opinions. I'm done. >

The back up came when I suggested you Google "remote form" verb. Did you do it?

Didn't I say that "remote form" is a distinct idea from "past tense" and "conditional"?

Did you notice the scare quotes around every posting of the wrods "past tense", Furry? The forms of the modals we are talking about are historically named "past tense". Michael lewis was the first person to talk about such forms as "remote forms". If you read about "remote forms", you'll see where you "analysis" is going wrong.

M56 is an stubborn asshole. I don't know how his students can put up with his atrocious crap. kef, good to see that you are done with him. Otherwise he will take you to death with his endless gibberish on grammar terms that are useless to many learners on the whole.

I don't think that my analysis is wrong so much that there is more than one right way to look at it. But if you're convinced that isn't the case, so be it. None of this is going to teach anybody a thing. I'm done.

- Kef

<M56 is an stubborn asshole. I don't know how his students can put up with his atrocious crap. >

We've yet to hear your take on my topic question. Do you also state that it is conditional?

C'mon, Guest, instead of slagging teachers off, why don't you give us your educated opinion on this?

<<At a hotel reception, why does the receptionist as "what was the name, please", and not "what is the name, please"?>>

<None of this is going to teach anybody a thing. I'm done. >

Your take on this hasn't taught me anything. I think M56's take seems most logical.

<Your take on this hasn't taught me anything.>

Furry is learning Emglish and wants to teach it at the same time.