Thank you, Wakannai-san, Gundaetiapo-san.
Definitely a difference in tone and stress. 2 the entire sentence would be even in tone. 6's "would" would be stressed.
My book explains; Generally "would" be stressed in 2 usage, like this.
(2) 過去の弱い意志: 意志を表す will の過去形と考えればよく、一般にwould に強勢がある。
(This made me recall that you asked how Japanese handle a stressed word.)
However, it's really just a tense issue. 2 is referring to the past (past tense of will).
Yes, regarding 2, the explanation is the same as yours, and I think I can understand 2 usage, probably... hopefully...
6 projects into the future looking back. There is an understood, "If anyone would, you would...." This understood "If" projects into the future. If I went to the future, then the present would be my past. It is the expectation of the result that indicates the criticism.
I don't think I could understand this correctly, especially " It is the expectation of the result that indicates the criticism." part.
("If I went to the future, then the present would
be my past." is understandable.)
You would lose your glasses! > Would here shows that the past result should have been expected based on previous examples. John doesn't just lose his glasses, he is constantly misplacing everything. Thus it's really just tense, but a bit more complex. Instead of just looking back, the speaker is looking back at how she should have looked forward in time based on her experience.
Can I take this expression is used in the kind of following condition:
John can't manage any possessions, as if he keeps holding his will to lose everything. This time John lost glasses.
I can't stand anymore! → "You would lose your glasses!" (01+02+04+undesirable phenomenon=06)
Would indicates past tense. Either real past or imaginary past where we assume a future perspective and the present is treated as history.
I've found that I can't imagine "imaginary past". A real past is only thing that I can imagine. It must be a lack of my imagination.
Gundaetiapo wrote:I think one category could be for when "would" adds a nuance of indirectness.
For all of these, A sounds more indirect than B but otherwise has the same meaning. This can have the effect of sounding a little more polite or a little less blunt.
That was why I asked "Is "would you think" still weird? Or more polite than "do you think" for this context ?"
However note that how something is said carries more weight than the words chosen.
I see. This would be more important to understand an entire sentence.
02) 過去の強い意志 > George would stick to his own theory.
I don't completely understand 2, 6, 7 I'm afraid. Does it provide context or more examples?
There are no contexts,but it has some notes.
2) The rusty screw wouldn't come loose. ( explanation is above.)
6) (This usage has only one example and there is no explanation.)
Alexander could have conquered the whole world if he would have done so.
05) 現在の弱い意志 >Who would believe your story?
This one seems the closest to "would you guess" and "would you say" that we're talking about in this thread.
I need more time to understand this. I wouldn't understand auxiliary verbs and tense! (?)
Thank you again, and sorry for the late reply.