0

To me both might and would appear to have similar meaning. E.g. consider the following sentences:.

  1. I think taking some rest after work would be good.
  2. I think taking some rest after work might be good.

The only difference I see is that would sounds more assuring than might. That is, in #1 speaker is more inclined to accept the fact that having some rest will be good, but in #2 speaker isn't sure about it. In #2 it is like 50/50, it can be good and it cannot be.

So, what is the difference between would and might?

Improve this question
0

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

As you pointed out, the main (and probably the most striking) difference between 'might be' and 'would be' is in the degree of certainty.

I think taking some rest after work would be good.

'would' is a modal verbs, and is the past tense of 'will'. By using 'will', the certainty of the event happening is most likely. The speaker thinks that taking a rest after work is a good thing to do, and he is almost completely certain that this is advisable.

I think taking some rest after work might be good.

Much like 'would', 'might' is also a modal verb, and is the past tense of 'may'. In terms of certainty, 'might' or 'may' has a lesser degree of certainty, when compared to 'would' or 'will'. The speaker suggests that resting is a good option, after work, and he is certain that this is true, with a hint of probability of the statement's validity.

Other than that, I don't see any striking differences between the two.

A few good reads:

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .