Tell me more ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 1 down vote favorite

If you want to explain a situation where, for example, you want to talk about a bus driver who goes and take a coffee sometimes on the way, which one would be more appropriate:

There is this one driver, who goes and gets a coffee on the way and you have to wait like for 10 minutes.

There is this one driver, who would go and get a coffee on the way, and you would have to wait like for 10 minutes.

share|improve this question
Both sound fine. Very slight difference in meaning but inconsequential in this informal kind of speech. – Mitch Feb 12 '12 at 3:16
Sorry, OT... One day the army unit stations a philosophy student as sentry. If he hears a sound, he is supposed to call out: "Who goes there?" But this guy, when he thinks he heard a sound, but isn't sure, calls out: "Who would go there?" – GEdgar Feb 12 '12 at 13:30
1  
I don't see how this is OT. The question is asking about the usage of "who would go" versus "who goes." The OP gives also the context for which he is asked, which means it's not a too generic question. It could be the answer doesn't change basing on the context, but that doesn't make the question OT. – kiamlaluno Feb 13 '12 at 17:14

2 Answers

up vote 4 down vote accepted

To me the "would" form is appropriate either if the whole thing is hypothetical:

There might be one driver who would go and get a coffee...

or in the past:

There used to be one driver who would go and get a coffee ...

If it is non-hypothetical and present, I wouldn't use "would":

There is this one driver, who goes and gets a coffee ...

share|improve this answer
Can we use "There is this one driver" at the beginning in a hypothetical situation? – Noah Feb 12 '12 at 1:50
No, because you are asserting ("there is this one driver"), so there is nothing hypothetical about it. – Colin Fine Feb 12 '12 at 1:55
But we can say: "there would be this one driver", right? I am just looking for alternatives instead of might. – Noah Feb 12 '12 at 1:59
No. The only sense I can make of that ("would" with the main verb) is past habitual (like "used to be"). To get a hypothetical you need to use either a verb like "might" or "could be", or a condition "if there were". – Colin Fine Feb 12 '12 at 2:07
1  
That example makes no more sense than the earlier ones. If you want to use "would" you need to be talking about either habit in the past, or about a hypothetical situation: but for the latter you need something (usually an explicit conditional, but in can probably be contextual) to establish the hypothetical context. I don't understand why you keep asking variations on the question "Can I use 'would' in this way you've told me I can't". – Colin Fine Feb 12 '12 at 16:24
show 2 more comments
up vote 4 down vote

When we are telling a story, we usually use either the present tense or the past tense. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_mode) Your first sentence uses the present tense, which is fine:

There is [present existence] this one driver, who goes and gets [present habit] a coffee on the way and you have [present habit] to wait like for 10 minutes.

Your second sentence mixes the present tense and past tense, which is not fine:

There is [present existence] this one driver, who would [past habit] go and get a coffee on the way, and you would [past habit] have to wait like for 10 minutes.

So just change is to was:

There was [past existence] this one driver, who would [past habit] go and get a coffee on the way, and you would [past habit] have to wait like for 10 minutes.

(You also omitted the to from have to in your second sentence. I assume that's just a slip.)

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

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.