1

cambridge.org: "Will" and "would" can be used in conditional clauses, either with the meaning of ‘being willing to do something’, or to refer to later results:
(1) If Clare will meet us at the airport, it will save us a lot of time.
(2) If you would all stop shouting, I will try and explain the situation!

Cambridge says (1) = (1a):
(1a) If Clare is willing to meet us at the airport, it will save us a lot of time.
I was told here that (2) = (2a):
(2a) If you are all willing to stop shouting, I will try and explain the situation!

From these examples I infer that in the meaning of ‘being willing to do something’:
will = would = am/are/is willing to

Therefore, I can replace "will" and "would" with each other without changing the meaning:
(3) If Clare would meet us at the airport, it will save us a lot of time.
(4) If you will all stop shouting, I will try and explain the situation!

That is:
(1) = (3)
(2) = (4)

If I'm not right, tell me please:
Why does my logic not work?
What is the difference between (1) and (3)?
What is the difference between (2) and (4)?

Improve this question
2
  • The difference between #1 and #3 is that #3 explicitly refers to whether or not Clare is willing to go to the airport. In #1 it's at least possible Clare has given no thought to whether her future includes being there or not - and may never do so (it could be "intention-agnostic", same as If Clare meets us at the airport...). Note that although "unlikely", If the London train will arrive at the airport before [blah blah] is syntactically valid (speaker doesn't currently know what time that train is due to arrive, even if the train company think they know for sure! :).
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Jul 16, 2023 at 17:35
  • ...and the difference between #2 and #4 is that #4 is relatively unlikely. And #4 doesn't necessarily mean exactly the same thing; the addressees may all in principle be "willing" to be quiet, but in practice they may be so excited they're completely unable to restrain themselves.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Jul 16, 2023 at 17:40

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

No, in that context, "will", "would" and "be willing to" are not interchangeable. Two things having the same meaning or broad function doesn't mean they're identical.

While the literal meaning of (2) "If you would all stop shouting..." and (2a) "If you are all willing to stop shouting..." are roughly the same, they do convey very different tones.

Sentence (2) is angry, frustrated, or out of control, while (2a) is calm, collected and in control. This makes the exclamation point (!) at the end of (2a) a bit of a surprise.

(1) ≠ (3). (1) "If she will meet us..." is a highly indirect way of making a request. It sounds like meeting us there is really entirely up to her whim, but if she happens to choose to do so, it will save us a lot of time. This structure is rarely used. (3) "If she would meet us...", on the other hand, means something like, "Please ask/get her to meet us at the airport". This is a very common way of making a polite request that someone else do something.

Similarly, (2) ≠ (4). (2) has the same function as (3) of making a normal polite request, while (4) has the same function as (1) of very indirectly and weakly suggesting that people stop shouting.

While someone did tell you that (2) and (2a) were the same, that was in a comment, not an answer. And while it's true the broad function of the two are the same, the emotions conveyed are quite different.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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