All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.

All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.

All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.

All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.

All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.

All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.

All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.

All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.

All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.

All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.