I know how conditional if clause sentences work. I'm aware of the rules which I have to follow. However, I sometimes use would after would which of course is incorrect in terms of grammar.
Is there any example where you could use would after you had already used would in the first clause?
For instance:
If I would be rich, I would definitely buy a car.
I know that it should be
If I was/were rich, I would buy a car
But I am asking for an example where would after would would be appropriate.
Use of deontic would in the protasis and epistemic would in the apodosis:
“If you would all PLEASE take your seats, we would actually be able to get started on time for once.”
Non-native speakers should probably not attempt this.
The asker appears to be looking for a counterexample to the simplistic “rule” sometimes taught to English language learners never to put would on both sides of a conditional.
Normally this is true, but you actually can put would in the “if” part not just the “then” part provided that the first one carries the special restricted sense of were willing to or wanted to.
The English modal system is much more flexible and varied than simple “rules” are much good at explaining.
I can think of five hundred ways to destroy him: how I would would not be a problem.
Disclaimer: Not a native speaker.
"Would you ever use would twice in a sentence?"
"I would, but would you?"
The first is mentioned but you could count it as a use. In the second case you could omit the but and have the two words consecutive with only a comma in between.
George and Ira Gershwin have a great example for you:
He'll build a little home
That's meant for two,
From which I'll never roam,
Who would, would you?
And so all else above
I'm dreaming of the man I love.
You can use "would" twice in a sentence with no intervening words!
Example:
One does not ask, as Americans would: “Would you like something to drink?,” because social etiquette would require the guest to answer in the negative.
I realize the question is about conditionals. However, you can have "would" directly after "would" if you have a noun phrase ending with "would" that serves as the subject of your sentence, e.g.: He tells you that he would never do that, but someone who would would never admit it.
I would appreciate it very much if you would give me the answer to this question.
This sentence might imply that the other person has the answer but possibly doesn't want to share it with me.
I sometimes use would after would which of course is incorrect in terms of grammar.
I believe there's no such grammar rule in English that you should not use would after would. If indeed there's such a rule, you should not blindly accept it, because there are an infinite number of exceptions to the rule as made abundantly clear by previous answers.
*If I would be rich, I would definitely buy a car.
Your example is "incorrect in terms of grammar" not because you use would after would but because you use the first would incorrectly. In the if-clause, you can fully express the counterfactual meaning by the simpler form was or were instead of the more complex form would be, and the latter only adds an unnecessary and incorrect meaning. In English, as in other languages, when you add an unnecessary and incorrect meaning, it always amounts to grammatical incorrectness.
I would not do what they would do.
(replace do with whatever verb)
Indeed, you can get several instances of would in a single sentence.
Would that you should, I wouldn't have tried what you would have, would I?
(expressing that, desirable as the case where the second person is obligated to act, the first person prefers a different method or result than the second person, and rhetorically seeking confirmation of that fact)
Here's a valid example of doing it.
Yes, this is link only: I meant it to be that way because the link leads directly back to the question.
Well, there is this nice tongue tripper:
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck would chuck wood?
