"Will" is used to talk about the future: "we will go tomorrow".
"Would" is used for (a) the future in the past and (b) the conditional.
1: "We will go tomorrow."
2a: "I said that we would go tomorrow"; "I knew that we would go"; "I thought that we would go"; "I had already decided ...
Modern English, apart from a few vestiges, does not express mood by morphology: instead, it has a range of modals (such as will, can, must, should) each of which has its own range of meanings.
Some of them can be used to translate particular morphological constructions in other languages: but in my view nothing is gained by trying to put labels on the ...
Must, like all modals, takes the base form of the following verb, not a to infinitive. Always.
Must is also a noun, meaning "something that you must have". Your first sentence needs "a", and says "Languages are a must to learn", or to turn it round "To learn languages is a must". Even with this nominal use of must, the ...
Yes, you can use (1) if you don't know whether he really went to that school. It doesn't necessarily imply he didn't go to the school.
If you know for sure that he didn't go to that school, you can confirm it with an additional assertion:-
It was a good idea for him to go to that school at the time, but he didn't
Yes, conditional constructions can make a statement or request more indirect, less blunt ("Excuse me, would you have change for a dollar?"). But in this case it's also used because the speaker is talking about something imagined, something that has not and probably will not happen. "I want to write—" but I won't—because maybe "I ...
There's not really that much difference, although using their contraction form would sound more natural. However, is 'is' a much better word to use if you won't use their contraction form.
In American English the phrase "gone to hospital" would not/wouldn't be correct. One of the articles, "the" or "a", would be ...
I'm pretty sure the word "would" refers to Paul Merson's 'assumption' that the three managers can win.
Would is used to communicate about a hypothetical or an imagined event, and it is frequently employed when that prospective circumstance will or will not occur.
Which the sentence used the word "would" to make an assumption.
Welcome to EL&U! Your use of will is correct and natural. We're in the present tense, so you might also use can: "...unlikely to find anyone who can work with her."
No, you shouldn't use would or could here, but you would need them in the past tense:
Everyone knew her reputation and she was unlikely to find anyone who would willingly work with ...
I think you're being misled by the fact that in some circumstances could functions as a past.
Historically, could was the past of can (and might was the past of may, incidentally). This still appears when we back-shift for indirect quotation:
He said "I can do it" -> He said he could do it.
But in modern English, as you note, could has other ...
a) To apply for the job, the candidate must have been born on or before 1st Jan. 2000.
b) To apply for the job, the candidate has to have been born on or before 1st Jan. 2000.
Correct, although (a) is perhaps easier to read.
c) To apply for the job, the candidate had to have been born on or before 1st Jan. 2000.
Wrong: the tense implies that it ...
I would say none of them, as your age requirement cannot control people applying but only getting hired.
As for your date issue, instead of stating the date in the posting I would instead simply state the age requirement: "To be considered for this position the applicant must be at least 21 years old on the day the application is submitted." If you ...