0
Anonymous Posted 11 years ago
Grammar

Should/ought to

Can 'should/ought to' make conditional type two ? Thanks.
  

Top answer

Anonymous Can 'should/ought to' make conditional type two ? Thanks. Yes with 'should', but it doesn't happen very often.

— CalifJim

  • Anonymous Can 'should/ought to' make conditional type two ?
  • Thanks.
  • Yes with 'should', but it doesn't happen very often.
  • In more formal language and in the language of many years ago, 'I should' and 'we should' sometimes substitutes for 'I would' and 'we would'.
  • I should be surprised if Wilson made an appearance at the wedding.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

6 Answers
0
AnonymousCan 'should/ought to' make conditional type two ? Thanks.
Yes with 'should', but it doesn't happen very often. In more formal language and in the language of many years ago, 'I should' and 'we should' sometimes substitutes for 'I would' and 'we would'.

I should be surprised if Wilson made an appearance at the wedding.
Nowadays:
0
0
If you were offered the job next week, you should/ought to accept,

That is OK. 'Would is not possible there.
0
0
fivejedjonThat is OK. 'Would is no possible there.
In a different reading it is.

CJ
0
0
CalifJimIn a different reading it is.
Indeed. My point was that in BrE at least, 'should' is still alive an kicking in all persons as a verb-form in its own right.
0
0
So both are possible to make conditional type two only in the probability sense if used in the main clause. That's the impression I get from the examples. Am I right? Thanks again.
0
0
If there is no sense of suggestion/obligation, then should is very rarely used and, if it is used, it is used only in the first person singular and plural. Would is far more common, and acceptable. Ought to cannot be used.

If there is a sense of suggestion/obligation, then we use should/ought to. Would is not used.
0

Related Questions