Would or should?

Question

---Jack gave a performance at the Globe theatre last night.

---That ____ exciting.

A. could be B. could have been C. would be D.would have been

Which shall we choose? Can you explain the meanings and uses of the four options? Thanks.

Yankee · Accepted Answer

Hi Anon

Actually, I don't really like any of the options very much. If the first person saw the performance and the second person did not, then I might expect the second person to say something such as "That must have been exciting."

In my neck of the woods (eastern USA), people might also say something such as "That should have been exciting" -- which would basically mean "I expect that was probably exciting".

Here are my comments on your options:
First of all, you need something that refers to the past.

A./C. "That could/would be exciting" => Neither option A nor option C refers to the past in that context.

B. "That could have been exciting" => This is a reference to the past, and I'd say it would only be possible for your sentence as long as neither of the speakers actually saw Jack's performance, OR possibly if the second speaker already knew that in fact Jack's performance was not exciting he might say something like this: "Jack is very talented, so that could have been an exciting performance to see. However, Jack wasn't feeling well last night, so his performance was actually rather boring".

D. "That would have been exciting" => This also refers to the past. To me, this would be less likely than option B. However, if the wording were changed a bit, I would be more comfortable with it. If the second speaker did not see the performance, he might end up saying something like this, for example:
"I wish I had seen it. That would have been an exciting performance to see."

Patrick Lockerby · Answer

I agree with Yankee.

However, I would add this:

If Jack is known to be a brilliant performer, or member of the audience who enjoys climbing on stage as a practical joke, then 'that would have been exciting.' makes a lot of sense.

Generally, 'should' is used to carry an idea of more certainty than 'could'.

Professor "I'm going to sing the national anthem."
Student, to friend: "This could be interesting."

Professor "I'm going to stand on my head and sing the national anthem."

Student, to friend: "This should be interesting."

Anonymous · Answer

According to OXFORD ADVANCED LEARNER'S DICTIONARY OF CURRENT ENGLISH WITH CHINESE TRANLATION, "will" can be "used to incicate that probability or likelihood", and the dictionary gives the following example: She would be 60 when she died.

My question is: why is "would be" used here to refer to the past?

Thanks.

Clive · Answer

Hi,

According to OXFORD ADVANCED LEARNER'S DICTIONARY OF CURRENT ENGLISH WITH CHINESE TRANLATION, "will" can be "used to incicate that probability or likelihood", and the dictionary gives the following example: She would be 60 when she died.

My question is: why is "would be" used here to refer to the past?

It would be helpful to have some context. We'll invent one.

Today, in 2009, I remember the last time I saw Mary. It was 1980. She was 55. I remember that it was a beautiful day. We both felt so healthy. We thought we would both live to be a hundred. She would be 60 when she died in 1985. But on that beautiful day in 1980, we didn't know that.

I'm trying to show that my thinking is focused on 1980. At that point, Mary's death was still in what, in 1980, was the future. 'She would be 60' is a way of referring to what is sometimes called the future in the past.

( However, I wouldn't really call this 'probability or likelihood'. )

Best wishes, Clive

Would or should?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions