Can someone settle an argument I'm having?

Her wont be getting lunch and he is not calling that a comedy

>"I would get lunch with you, but my doctor's appointment is in 10 minutes." >Does this mean Bill is going to get lunch with John or not? Not. He's explaining why not. > EDIT: "I would call that a comedy, if it wasn't so depressing." He doesn't think it's funny. It's common to say "I *would* do X, *but I cannot* (for some reason)". We can omit the clear "cannot", to soften the rejection somewhat. The word "but" makes it clear that it's an apology (or excuse) why they cannot do something. "I would go, but I'm busy." "I'd go out, but I'm too tired." "I would be rich, but I spent all my money on booze".

No. Bill clearly doesn't think the movie is a comedy.

the but/if it wasn't/etc completely negates it. let me give you a more extreme example: "you would have gotten away mr bond, but i'm going to shoot you in the face with lasers now" can you see from this example that the first half is not true now since mr bond is going to be dead?

"I would (X)" all by itself generally means yes, but in a sort of abstract way. "I would get lunch with you," does not mean that there's a specific date you're planning to have lunch together, only that the person speaking is open to the possibility of getting lunch. "I would call it a comedy" means that, hypothetically, if someone asked, you would be likely to say "It's a comedy." Once you add that "but," though, you stray from "abstract yes" to "qualified no." There is a specific reason that something that *should be a yes,* is instead a no. "I would get lunch, but I have an appointment," means "I want to get lunch, but I can't because I already have plans." Likewise, "I'd call it a comedy, but it's depressing," probably means, "It has a lot of funny lines, comedic elements, and other traits typical of a comedy movie, but overall, the movie makes me so sad that I can't call it a comedy."

So, original question, no you aren’t getting lunch with John. You’re saying you want to, and other many other circumstances would, but because of your appointment, you can’t. In the second case, he does not, as he is saying it is far too depressing to be a comedy (not an actual metric for comedy, mind you)

It's the "would" that matters here. It puts us in the subjunctive, which describes hypotheticals, or "things that *might* happen." It can go either way from there, and using "but" or "if" is kind of like using "not" or "won't": you're proposing a hypothetical situation, and then saying it won't happen. (Speaking of subjunctive, the right tense of "to be" to use for your second example would be "I would call that a comedy if it *weren't* so depressing.")

he’s not getting lunch and doesn’t think it’s a comedy. i read your other post - it’s 100% understandable. i’m not sure how people are so fundamentally misinterpreting you.

in your edit it seems that they're saying it is almost a comedy, or comparable to a comedy, but it's so depressing that it can't *really* be considered as such.

He's not calling the movie a comedy. It's a hypothetical statement, that's why the conditional is used.

The would ... but construction always means it didn't happen.

He won't be getting lunch and it is not a comedy. However note: The latter sentence is more complicated as it CAN be used in a situation where he does think it's a comedy. This largely depends on context, but without context I would say that he doesn't think it's a comedy. Edit: The "if it wasn't" is doing the job of "but it's", the two are interchangable. The "but" is negating the prior statement to at least some degree. Combined with "would" this implies he is not calling it a comedy. The reason it gets complicated is that this can be implied in a sardonic way, if the context is there.

>Bill is talking to his friend, John, and says "I would get lunch with you, but my doctor's appointment is in 10 minutes." Bill would like to have lunch with John, but he will not get lunch because he has an appointment. >Bill says to John "I would call that movie a comedy, if it wasn't so depressing." Does Bill think that movie is a comedy? This one is a little more complicated. Bill thinks the movie is somewhat comedic, or in the very least shares some similarities with comedy films, otherwise he would not call it a comedy at all. But the movie is more depressing that it is comedic, and therefore cannot be considered a comedy, at least not entirely. Bill thinks the movie is depressing, with some level of comedic traits.

In your second example no, he does not think it’s a comedy. If it weren’t so depressing then it would be.

You're being trolled in the other thread. The person you're arguing with isn't arguing in this faith, they're wasting your time.

In the first sentence Bill is saying to John: "I cannot go out with you because I have a doctor's appointment in ten minutes. However, I wish I could go out with you even though it isn't possible." In the second sentence, the speaker is saying "this movie is very depressing, so it cannot be a comedy. However, the movie has some features that are similar to comedy films." The "but" basically negates everything in the first part of the sentence.

I would call that movie a comedy if it wasn't so depressing seems like it should be "if it weren't so depressing." that is the subjunctive mood and signifies something that is hypothetical. If that movie was marketed as a comedy, it was a mistake because it's too depressing. In this instance, it's very possible that it was marketed that way. Idk if this helps, but it's the different between the indicative and subjunctive moods.

Not and not.

Read up on conjunctions (and, if, but) and conditionals.

“I would, but” and “I would, if it weren’t” both mean something is stopping you from doing the thing. If the first example was “I will, but”, then it actually means yes, even though there is an obstacle stopping you, you will try to do the thing but may not end up satisfactorily.

This is a hard question to answer simply, the thing is bill is saying that the movie is funny enough to be a comedy but is so depressing that the movie is better off being given another genre title. So no he doesn’t think it’s a comedy because it’s so depressing. However he doesn’t think it would be one if it wasn’t. Basically the movie is funny neigh to be a comedy but its overarching context is so depressing it really detracts from the humorous attitude generally associated with a comedy. “I would call this [thing] a [generalized decriptive name for things of this nature] if it wasn’t so [emotion that detracts from that]” is a common way to say that it’s very close to a genre while not exactly fitting it perfectly. English is weird and while I didn’t think about it before I can completely see why you were confused by this it’s extremely specific in its linguistic meaning.

there is a difference between will, would, should, shall, can, might, all these conditional words. especially in legal writing. give a quick google on those it will clear up the sentence a little bit more.

Bill is not going to have lunch with John, and the movie is not a comedy.

It is. It turns it completely on its head: Bill will not have lunch with John as he is about to see his doctor. Also Bill doesn’t agree with the film being a comedy due to it being depressing

It means they’re not going to have lunch together

Not. The important part is the 'but'. Bill would like to get lunch with John, however he can't due to the doctors appointment.

No. Bill has a conflicting appointment. Therefore he will not be having lunch with John.

Both are describing counterfactuals, and this is a fairly standard construct, except it traditionally takes the form of “(conditional statement) if (past subjunctive)” So were I writing your second example, I would phrase it as, “I would call that movie a comedy if it weren’t so depressing”.

Bill will NOT have lunch with John, and Bill does NOT think the movie is a comedy.