Hooked tenuously to this discussion of British vs. American uses of "quite," via Prudence Whittaker, the private secretary in Summer Moonshine who constantly says "Quate," my two favorite Wodehousean insults:
"Kickworthy young heel" (Summer Moonshine)
"Pumpkin-headed foozler" (The Code of the Woosters)
P-h f gets the edge for appearing on the same page as this philosophically important piece of dialogue:
"He would!"
"What do you mean, he would?"
"Well, he did, didn't he?"
Your task, should you choose to accept it: Why doesn't "he did" imply "he would"?
Posted by Matt Weiner at June 24, 2004 12:24 PMIsn't "He would [x]" idiomatic for something like, "It's in his character [to x]"? Since people can do things that are out of character, x-ing doesn't imply its being in one's character to x, which therefore doesn't imply "he would [x]".
Just a stab.
Posted by: Jason Turner at June 25, 2004 07:32 AMThat seems like a good account to me.
Next up might be an account of why we use "he would!" for that idiom--is it the same "would" as in "If you were to help him, he would be grateful"? Does the Wodehouse dialogue reflect a counterfactual that's not counterfactual?
Posted by: Matt Weiner at June 28, 2004 10:54 AM