Why 'would' here please~

Question

Grammar experts, would anyone please explain to me the usage of the modal 'would' in here:

It really amazes me that you would waste precious time worrying about proper procedures when a serial killer is on the loose.

The person 'you' are actually wasting precious time, and I'm wondering why the modal 'would' was used in here.

I would appreciate any help! Thanks!

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

BamtoriIt really amazes me that you would waste precious time worrying about proper procedures when a serial killer is on the loose.

"Would" makes the criticism less direct and much more polite. Here is the less polite version:

It amazes me that you waste precious time ....

The same is true for requests:

Would you get that for me? (polite)
Get that for me. ( direct order)

CalifJim · Answer

BamtoriI'm wondering why the modal 'would' was used in here.

I call this "evaluative would", but it's also related to the concept of willingness. There's also "evaluative should", which has the same meaning.
_________________________

This grammatical pattern is common with "psych-verbs" (verbs of psychological state).

The main verb expresses a psychological reaction. The subject is often "it".

It amazes me that ...
It upsets me that ...
It distresses him that ...
It puzzles us that ...
It surprises them that ...
It delights her that ...
It worries me that ...
It bothers Jack that ...

With some verbs you can make the main clause impersonal if you use the -ing form:

It is [amazing / upsetting / distressing / ...] that ...
___

The subordinate clause contains would (or should):

... you would ...
... they would ...
... the chairman would ...
... anyone would ...
______________________

One paraphrase that works is "is the kind of person who is willing to", or "is the kind of person who is capable of". This puts the focus on the character of the agent (person), not on the action of the agent (person), thus:

It [amazes / bothers / distresses / surprises] me that

[you would waste time on such things /

you should waste time on such things /
you are the kind of person who is willing to waste time on such things /
you are the kind of person who is capable of wasting time on such things]

when a serial killer is on the loose.

The source of the amazement, bother, distress, or surprise is not so much the wasting of time (That is conveyed without would: It amazes me that you waste time ...), but the willingness of the agent of the action (you). It's saying,Your desire/willingness to waste time surprises me. Less so, Your wasting time surprises me.
______________________

Likewise:

It [astonished / amused / shocked / delighted] the children that

[the magician would make their teacher disappear /
the magician should make their teacher disappear /
the magician was the kind of person who was willing to make their teacher disappear /
the magician was the kind of person who was capable of making their teacher disappear].

Here the focus is on the children's feelings toward the magician. The magician's ability to make the teacher disappear is the focus. (Here I might even say that the magician's impertinence, arrogance, insolence, and/or audacity at making a teacher disappear can be added to the children's reaction.) That's what aroused their astonishment, amusement, shock, or delight -- not so much the fact that he made the teacher disappear (That is conveyed without would: It astonished the children that the magician made their teacher disappear).
______________________

That's what would (or should) does in these kinds of sentences.

CJ

Why 'would' here please~

It really amazes me that you would waste precious time worrying about proper procedures when a serial killer is on the loose.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions