Timeline for Que sera seria - What will be WOULD be
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Dec 29, 2015 at 17:34 | comment | added | Adam | It's really more about the speaker than the evidence. Some people speak as if they're certain of everything and some people like they don't know if anything is real. You could be looking at obviously putrid, rank-smelling fish while holding it in your hand and still say it's most likely putrid. It's all context-based, and the choice of words in sentences like this changes the perceived intent ever so slightly. The OP's sentence is a little funny if you look at it closely from a grammatical perspective, but it's not about what evidence you have, it's about what evidence you pretend to have. | |
| Dec 29, 2015 at 16:09 | comment | added | Kinzle B | +1 Good answer! I think #2 works when there is a lack of evidence that the fish is putrid. That's also the context all your five examples would fit. Am I right? (I'm not a native speaker:) btw) | |
| Dec 27, 2015 at 23:15 | history | answered | Adam | CC BY-SA 3.0 |