English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

A man asked a question to his friend, “Why was it the best time for Bilal to be in his home?”

His friend replied, “It would be the best time for Bilal to be in his home because his uncle visited him at that time.”

In what sense is the modal verb would being used above?

Can we replace the would used there with this instead:

It might have been the best time. . . ..

What job does would do in the quoted dialogue above?

share|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted
  1. The phrase in his home is not the usual idiom: we normally say at home. This doesn't necessarily mean that the phrase is wrong or unidiomatic; it’s possible to imagine circumstances in which in his home would be exactly the right way to put it; but it raises the suspicion that the speakers were not native speakers.

  2. The answer is not unambiguously responsive to the question: ordinarily an answer is expressed with the same tense and mood as the question. Here, however, the question is expressed using the simple past, but the answer uses a construction with would; and although would is indeed the simple past form of will, its use implies one of these meanings:

    • a ‘future-in-the-past’—that is, something which happened after his uncle visited; but that is very far-fetched, and really requires elaboration: “It would turn out to be the best time because it just so happened that his uncle visited him at that time” ...
    • a ‘hypothetical’—something which would be true if something else were true; but there’s no if clause here ...
    • an offhand and somewhat dismissive assertion, more or less equivalent to has to or must—“Oh, it has to be because his uncle visited him at that time.”

    So there are two possible misuses, and one possible correct use. You may be charitable and assume that the speaker was using would correctly. Me, given point 1, I doubt it: I just don't think a native speaker would construct so formal a sentence as that with would in that sense.

I think you are probably right in your guess that what the speaker meant was might have been; but that's not something which the construction with would expresses.

share|improve this answer
So 'might have been' doesn't mean the same thing? The sentence is not by a native speaker, and I know that he meant 'might have been'. I just want to confirm whether 'would' is interchangeable with 'might have been', in the sense that is expressed by 'might have been'? – Samama Fahim Mar 30 '13 at 20:25
@SamamaFahim Would is not interchangeable with might have been. Nohow, no way. :) – StoneyB Mar 30 '13 at 20:41
Thanks for the explanation! :) – Samama Fahim Mar 30 '13 at 20:54
@SamamaFahim However, it would be possible to substitute could be (or could have been, either will work) for might have been in this context. – StoneyB Mar 30 '13 at 21:05
@ZhanlongZheng: It's more complicated than that. We don't use positive can for present possibility or inference, but could: "It could be that..." = "It is possible that" OR "I infer that...". We use can for present possibility/inference only in the negative: "It cannot be that...". Backshifted cannot becomes could not; but possible/inferential could does not change form when it is backshifted: "He said that it could be that..." = "He said that it was possible that ...". Present could is backshifted to could have been only when it represents an irrealis. – StoneyB Apr 24 '14 at 10:14

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.