would/will let you keep a pet

A

AmieAmie

Senior Member
Vietnamese
I saw a sentence below in "Tactics for Listening" published by Oxford University Press.
"But the thing was, they wouldn't let you keep a pet."
I guess that they use the past of "will" ( that is "would") because they use "was", is it correct? or does "would" mean to be possible, not certain?
The following sentence has the same meaning when we use the simple present tense, doesn't it?
"But the thing is, they won't let you keep a pet."
Please help me.
 
    • I'm right. Which one?
    they use the past of "will" ( that is "would") because they use "was", is it correct?
    or does "would" mean to be possible, not certain?
     
    All of the following are theoretically possible:

    "But the thing is, they wouldn't let you keep a pet."
    "But the thing was, they wouldn't let you keep a pet."
    "But the thing is, they won't let you keep a pet."
    "But the thing was, they won't let you keep a pet."

    Which one you would use (and the exact implication) would depend on context.
     
    I thought that "wouldn't let you keep a pet" is a rule, so It is certain. Why does "would" mean "not certain"?
     
    AmieAmie said:
    or does "would" mean to be possible, not certain?
    Click to expand...
    No, like all modal verbs, will/would has two basic unrelated meanings:
    - probability ("epistemic" meaning)
    - an act of the will such as intention, consent ("deontic" meaning).

    They will not let you = they refuse to let you.
    They would not let you = they refused to let you.
     
    I thought that "let you keep a pet" or not is a rule, so It is 100%. Why do they use "wouldn't let you keep a pet" while "wouldn't" means probable?
     
    The Newt said:
    All of the following are theoretically possible:

    "But the thing is, they wouldn't let you keep a pet."
    "But the thing was, they wouldn't let you keep a pet."
    "But the thing is, they won't let you keep a pet."
    "But the thing was, they won't let you keep a pet."

    Which one you would use (and the exact implication) would depend on context.
    Click to expand...
    This below is the context:
    "I used to live in a nice apartment downtown, in a pretty interesting neighborhood. But the thing was, they wouldn't let you keep a pet"
    Why do they use "was" and "wouldn't" but not others in the context
     
    AmieAmie said:
    I thought that "let you keep a pet" or not is a rule, so It is 100%. Why do they use "wouldn't let you keep a pet" while "wouldn't" means probable?
    Click to expand...
    As I explained in #7, “would” does not always mean “probable”.

    It has various “deontic” meanings (Past tense)
    - “They would not let you keep the pet” can mean “they were not minded to let you keep a pet”. “Would” can just indicate that there was an intelligence behind the decision.
    - “They would not let you keep the pet” can alternatively mean that “it was not their habit or custom to let you keep a pet”. “Would” can just indicate that there was an intelligence behind the decision.

    It also has epistemic meanings around tentative probability and prediction
    - “They would not let you keep the pet” can mean that I suspect or hypothesize that this is or will be their decision. The speaker does not see it as “100%”.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top