General Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
Difference in meaning

What is a difference of meaning on following sentences;

1) I like to know that.
2) I would like to know that

#1 question makes perfect grammatical sense to me because the verb is in present form, but not on #2 because "would" is a past tense of "will". Logically and rationaly thinking, how can I want to know something in present (moment of making that statement to know something) but using past auxiliary verb??!!

I know that "would" is a auxiliary verb to help main verb "like", but I am perplexed why using past verb form of "would" is permitted?

Please provide advice..Thanks.

Re: Difference in meaning

In your example, "would" has nothing to do with past time. Instead, it has a 'modal remoteness' meaning, a kind of 'hoped for' version of "want":

(1) I like to know that everything is okay.
(2) I would like to know that everything is okay.


In (1), the implication is that I am actually being made aware that everything is okay; it's an on-going situation that I am satisfied with.

But (2) is more tentative; I don't actually know that everything is okay at present, but I wish I did. It's something that I want to happen, though it may not be possible, hence it's modal remoteness interpretation.


Can you see the difference?




PaulM

Re: Difference in meaning

Paul Matthews
In your example, "would" has nothing to do with past time. Instead, it has a 'modal remoteness' meaning, a kind of 'hoped for' version of "want":

(1) I like to know that everything is okay.
(2) I would like to know that everything is okay.


In (1), the implication is that I am actually being made aware that everything is okay; it's an on-going situation that I am satisfied with.

But (2) is more tentative; I don't actually know that everything is okay at present, but I wish I did. It's something that I want to happen, though it may not be possible, hence it's modal remoteness interpretation.


Can you see the difference?




PaulM


So what you are saying is an auxiliary verb of "would" can also be "modal remoteness" that has no relation to time?

I never heard of modal remoteness so I need to do research on this topic. Thanks.

Re: Difference in meaning



So what you are saying is an auxiliary verb of "would" can also be "modal remoteness" that has no relation to time?

I never heard of modal remoteness so I need to do research on this topic. Thanks.


Not quite: it does have a relation to time, but not necessarily past time. The past tense modal auxiliary verbs "could", "might", "would" and "should" can all be used to mean past time, of course, but they can also be used in other ways. Consider these:

(1) "I asked him to help, but he wouldn't".
(2) "Would you help me with these boxes please"?
(3) "I would do it if they offered to pay me".

In (1) "would" has a past time meaning, but in (2, a polite request, it has a present time meaning, and in (3) it has a conditional meaning about something that may or may not happen in the future. We say that the "would" in (2) and (3) exhibit modal remoteness, not past time.

Modal remoteness is not restricted to only the modal auxiliary verbs. Consider these examples with the lexical verb "live":

(1) "I'm glad they live nearby".
(2) "I wish they lived nearby".

In (1) "live" is present tense verb, and in (2) "lived" is a past tense form, but they both refer to the present time. The past form "lived" in (2) has nothing to do with past time, but to do with modal remoteness. We understand from (1) that they do in fact live nearby, and from (2) that they don't. Thus (2) is interpreted counterfactually, i.e. as contrary to fact, or false. We call this the modal preterite use of "lived".

Have I explained that clearly?


PaulM

Re: Difference in meaning

Paul Matthews


So what you are saying is an auxiliary verb of "would" can also be "modal remoteness" that has no relation to time?

I never heard of modal remoteness so I need to do research on this topic. Thanks.


Not quite: it does have a relation to time, but not necessarily past time. The past tense modal auxiliary verbs "could", "might", "would" and "should" can all be used to mean past time, of course, but they can also be used in other ways. Consider these:

(1) "I asked him to help, but he wouldn't".
(2) "Would you help me with these boxes please"?
(3) "I would do it if they offered to pay me".

In (1) "would" has a past time meaning, but in (2, a polite request, it has a present time meaning, and in (3) it has a conditional meaning about something that may or may not happen in the future. We say that the "would" in (2) and (3) exhibit modal remoteness, not past time.

Modal remoteness is not restricted to only the modal auxiliary verbs. Consider these examples with the lexical verb "live":

(1) "I'm glad they live nearby".
(2) "I wish they lived nearby".

In (1) "live" is present tense verb, and in (2) "lived" is a past tense form, but they both refer to the present time. The past form "lived" in (2) has nothing to do with past time, but to do with modal remoteness. We understand from (1) that they do in fact live nearby, and from (2) that they don't. Thus (2) is interpreted counterfactually, i.e. as contrary to fact, or false. We call this the modal preterite use of "lived".

Have I explained that clearly?


PaulM


Dear Paul,

Oh yes, your explanation absolutely clears my lack of understanding. I am much more enlightened on this topic, I appreciate your effort and time. Thanks.