Why do people use conditional tense when they don't mean it?

Owen

Just watching the Barnardos ad on TV, and the entire thing seems to use the conditional tense (Apologies if I get the exact wording of what I'm trying to say wrong, it's been a while since I'd to study English). Sentences like :

She would have had a brightness and a lightness about her
She wouldn't have known what a hug is

Surely they mean 'She had a brightness and a lightness about her' and 'She didn't know what a hug was'? It's becoming common place too in everyday conversation - 'His Father would have been a Doctor in ...' as opposed to 'His Father was a Doctor ...' - is the conditional tense interchangeable like this?

DublinWriter

I think you might need to check out/google the difference between First, Second and Third conditionals (expressing intentions vs. expressing conditionals, etc).

Owen

Have done, and did so before creating the thread - but I still don't get it.

Normally conditional statements have qualifiers ... as in 'I would be rich ... if I won the Lotto'. So the ad in question 'She would have had a lightness and a brightness' would seem imcomplete to me without something like 'She would have had a lightness and a brightness ... if someone took the time to nurture her' or words to a similar effect.

DublinWriter

Owen wrote: »

if someone took the time to nurture her' or words to a similar effect.

I think I understand...maybe it's an evil marketing trick! The listener completes the sentence in his/her head and feels clever for doing so. The same technique is used in comedy.

Owen

Could well be a marketing trick - but I'm hearing it used so often in common conversation too.

Eoin

DublinWriter wrote: »

I think you might need to check out/google the difference between First, Second and Third conditionals (expressing intentions vs. expressing conditionals, etc).

I did a very quick google, and it doesn't seem to explain what Owen is talking about. It seems common to use it when something did happen, not might have happened if something else had occurred.

Owen wrote:

I'm hearing it used so often in common conversation too.

Yep, I've heard sentences like "I would have been out last night".

pickarooney

"Would" is often used in place of 'used to' to describe the habitual past, a tense that doesn't really exist in its own right in English. I think this might carry over into descriptions of non-habitual past actions describing a state which lasted over a certain length of time.

There's no real need for it in English but it could be that it decribes a certain tense that exists in, say, Irish?

Edit: Does anyone know what the construction 'ab ea é' is known as in Irish?

looksee

I have half heard that Barnados ad a few times and it doesn't seem to make any sense to me, I do get the impression it is supposed to sound more 'realistic' as though the people are care workers rather than actors. It doesn't work. Just like that other gimmick of 'clipping' the start of sentences which is supposed to sound like spontaneous comments and just sounds irritating.

odds_on

She would have had a brightness and a lightness about her

In this sentence, "would" is used to indicate a past typical characteristic - i.e. something that she had over a period of time not just on one occassion.

She wouldn't have known what a hug is

Would / should are sometimes used to refer to seemingly unreal or uncertain situations. In this manner it could also be somewhat sarcastic!

"Would" is often used in place of 'used to' to describe the habitual past, a tense that doesn't really exist in its own right in English. I think this might carry over into descriptions of non-habitual past actions describing a state which lasted over a certain length of time.

Nearly correct. However, only "used to" can refer to past states or possessions; compare the following:

When I was younger, I would/used to go swimming every day, in the summer.
When I was younger, I used to have a motorcycle.

That's my thrupence worth - inflation! Used to be a penny's worth.

Enkidu

pickarooney wrote: »

"Would" is often used in place of 'used to' to describe the habitual past, a tense that doesn't really exist in its own right in English. I think this might carry over into descriptions of non-habitual past actions describing a state which lasted over a certain length of time.
There's no real need for it in English but it could be that it decribes a certain tense that exists in, say, Irish?

This is basically the answer, "would" is a verbal particle which appeared to mark some tenses as the original way of declining the verb disappeared in Old English. As such it marks the conditional now. Another modal construction "used to" appeared to mark the past habitual.

However in Irish the conditional and past habitual are linked, they're part of the same verb structure. Hence to Irish speakers the conditional naturally went with the past habitual and so this lead to the past habitual being marked with "would" rather than "used to" in Hiberno-English.

So in these situations a person isn't using the conditional, they're using a different tense, it just happens to be marked by the same particle in their dialect.

Edit: Does anyone know what the construction 'ab ea é' is known as in Irish?

It's a factual copular past/conditional relative. Mainly it would used to state some fact which is no longer the case.

Owen

Thanks guys, wish I was more of a language nerd myself, great explanations!

J-Fit

Apologies for dragging up an old thread here, but in reference to what the OP said, I have noticed this more and more lately and I'm not sure if it's just me being more aware or that it is a new trend.

I think it is a very Irish trait, one that I find quite annoying actually. I heard somebody last week describing the interior of their house:

"I would have a pool table in the games room"

"I would have a Jacuzzi in the bathroom"

"Mum would cook my dinner every night"

Surely, You "do" have a pool table; you "do" have a Jacuzzi, your Mum "does" cook for you. Where are the conditions indicating that these are conditional observations?

Another one: "We would have a very strong team this year now" (actual quote)

You "would" or you "do"? Which is it? Under what circumstances would you not?

I'm thinking this is what the OP means. I've seen the Barnardos advert and it doesn't make sense either.

P. Breathnach

J-Fit wrote: »

...
I think it is a very Irish trait, one that I find quite annoying actually...

Yes, it is an Irish trait, rooted in the Irish language - see Enkidu's post above, the kernel of which is "in Irish the conditional and past habitual are linked".

It's a feature of Hiberno-English that Irish syntax is used to some extent. That's not something that we should find vexing. Rather is it reflective, in a small way, of cultural differences between Irish people and other denizens of the English-speaking world.

It's proud we should be of such things.

J-Fit

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's proud we should be of such things.

I see what you did there! Or am I getting too clever for myself?

Earthhorse

J-Fit wrote: »

"I would have a pool table in the games room"

"I would have a Jacuzzi in the bathroom"

"Mum would cook my dinner every night"

Don't have a problem with the last one but the first two sound wrong to me. I understand the explanations given on the thread, they just sound wrong to my ear.

pickarooney

It sounds as if the person is actually reluctant to admit to having them. As in "if the taxman asked me, I wouldn't have a jacuzzi".

gugleguy

to make their response more loaded.

Enkidu

gugleguy wrote: »

to make their response more loaded.

No, as already said it has a perfectly natural explanation as a calque of the Irish verbal system.

MathsManiac

I have also heard this used quite often when it's not a habitual past but a straighforward past definite.

"What did you say to her then?"
"I would have told her that..." (Speaker actually meant: "I told her that...")

Some people do it so much that you're not actually sure whether they are telling about things that actually happened or things that might have happened!

Bricriu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/75565032#Comment_75565032

You state that 'in Irish the Conditional and Past Habitual are linked, they're part of the same verb structure.'

What exactly does that mean? It doesn't make any sense to me, a native Irish speaker.

From the verb to be in Irish, the Conditional is 'Bheadh'; the Past Habitual is 'Bhíodh'!

Please explain.