The simple negative won't is used for future negative actions or for refusals. Grammar rules say that hadn't is used for unreal past conditions, but why can't we use simple past negation instead of past perfect The other question doesn't have that possibility, so it would be more natural in certain contexts where the other wouldn't
want me to pull it out? | Scrolller
But normally one should contract auxiliaries and negatives wherever possible.
Wouldn't is indeed short for would not, as in would you not want… it is simply a rhetorical question, meant to express of course you want extra protection.
The two expressions from the title, “i wouldn't ever” and “i would never”, are very similar But are they completely equivalent or do they bear any subtle differences If so, how do they differ in Don't means do not, won't means will not, and wouldn't means would not
I don't want to do x This per se means you currently don't want to do it However, for a native speaker, if x is defined to be a future event, it can mean would not (e.g I don't want to do x even if i get the chance)
Today i was talking to one of my friends who couldn't process her application
So she told me the following Why wouldn't they process my application I was only 5 minute. You'd of thought he'd of laughed, wouldn't you
Lewis, 1920) you'd of thought i'd robbed the crown jewels, the way she acted (t Sturgeon, 1958) another way is to bite the bullet and use the double contraction You can find such double contractions in published works, too 2 to my ear i won't is unconditional
I wouldn't implies the possibility of unspoken/implied conditions
(if such and such conditions are upheld.) i won't is a step closer to i can't Wouldn't is a potential step in the direction of weasel words. You wouldn't know good if it walked up to you and kicked you in the ____ Fill in the blank with any word of your choosing (e.g., butt, ass, nads,* groin), keeping in mind, of course, who your audience happens to be!
