I am not sure if both of the following sentences
“I contrived that he should meet her.”
and
“I contrived that he would meet her.”
have the same meaning and nuance and they are interchangeable with each other.

Could you please tell me?

Question

I am not sure if both of the following sentences 
“I contrived that he should meet her.”
and 
“I contrived that he would meet her.”
have the same meaning and nuance and they are interchangeable with each other.

Could you please tell me?

NihongoDeOK · Answer

Hmm... the meaning is exactly the same in both, but the first sentence feels slightly more formal and old-fashioned. Personally, I think that makes the first sentence a better fit--the word "contrived" is a bit rare in this context nowadays, so you'd probably only see it in formal, old-fashioned writings.

I also feel like the first sentence sounds more British, and the second sentence sounds more American...? That could be my imagination, though. 😅

I also feel like the first sentence sounds more British, and the second sentence sounds more American...? That could be my imagination, though. 😅

OwLeho · Answer

I think using "would" fits better with the meaning of "contrived" in most situations.

You technically can use "should" in that way, like "we should get there by dinnertime." or "if you should be in the area, be sure to stop by for a visit" etc. However, I feel like that meaning of "should" is not used as often, so it feels a little more obscure. I'm not sure if that's because it is more common in British English to use "should" that way? It might be.  Or if this has just become less common to use for that meaning in modern English. This is also possible. I just checked in a dictionary and it said that specific meaning for "should" has become 'formal' [which often means that it has fallen out of common speech and only some more formal/official/educated/upper-class contexts are still using it that way very often anymore].

But no matter what the reason is, I feel like most people will see the word "should" in a sentence and they then automatically think about the 'supposed to' or 'ought to' or demands, rules, correctness, obligations, duties, etc types of meanings first. So it is a lot harder to use the other meaning for it, and not have people assume the wrong meaning.

So when someone does that with this sentence, that makes thinking "he should meet her" sound like they believe this ought to happen. But that meaning doesn't naturally fit with the meaning of "contrived" very well.

Because contrived means you manipulated or manufactured the situation into happening that way. So the more predictive/anticipating "would" fits with "contrived" better. Technically "should" CAN be used for that meaning, but I just don't think it's going to be most American's first interpretation. So using "would" avoids that potential misinterpretation with "should".

And if you ever do want to use that other definition of "should" [the one that sort of references or predicts possible event/situation/consequences, etc]... then just be careful about the rest of the sentence and context. To make sure that the rest of the sentence helps make that meaning clear, so that it's harder to mistake the meaning for the other more common definitions of "should". It is just a little bit tricky to use that less common definition for "should". It takes a bit more careful planning, to keep the meaning clear.

NihongoDeOK · Answer

@OwLeho Yes, exactly! This usage of "should" is very obscure, and feels vaguely British. But the word "contrived" feels a bit obscure to me too, at least in any form other than as a synonym for "hackneyed." If I came across that word in an HG Wells book or an unusually poetic blog article, I wouldn't even blink. But if someone on the street said, actually SAID, with their mouth, "I contrived to be in the same class as her," I'd absolutely do a doubletake. Even in a formal setting, it would feel way too old-fashioned. That's an HG Wells word, not a business word. It feels too poetic.

So in that respect, the first sentence feels more *consistent* to me, but only if you're going for an old-fashioned feel, not if you're looking for natural conversation. In terms of what sounds natural, I'd say "I arranged for him to meet her" or "I arranged for them to meet."

How about you, OwLeho? Do you hear the verb "contrive" very often in conversation? You never know, maybe it's only obscure on the West Coast. It's all subjective, after all.

NihongoDeOK · Answer

Oh right, and I'm sorry we didn't have a simple, definite answer for you, @YoA24! This is the kind of subtle difference that language nerds like us get really excited about, haha.

To simplify, the meaning is the same, but the nuance is different. "I contrived that he would meet her" is probably better, since the word "should" might confuse people.

OwLeho · Answer

@Onomatopop Right? It felt vaguely British to me too. I kept thinking of examples from British media using it like this. But a lot of those are period dramas as well, so it's hard to know if it's just an older style of English vs a British style of English (or both), you know? It can be a blurry line between the two sometimes.

You know, I would agree about how commonly "contrived" is used. I wouldn't say "poetic" (because to me that has a slightly different connotation), but I would say "literary". It definitely seems to be used more in literature/writing, and not so much in conversation. (It is a lovely word though.)

For me personally, I do use it in conversation, but mostly just in the more hackneyed/artificial/unrealistic type of definition. And mostly just using the one phrasing, of saying that something was "a bit contrived" or that it "seemed a bit contrived" if a scene or a line of dialogue or part of the plot seemed like it was forced, or unnatural or not quite believable. (Like it only happened that way, because it was supposed to happen that way for the story, and not because it would ever be done that way in real life, etc. A little too artificially arranged to happen that way). So I guess I almost use it more like a phrase, when I do use it in conversation.

Also, I think I use it more often than most people I know, so I would agree that it's still not super common in conversation. Oddly enough, I do think most people would understand it, they just wouldn't expect it to be used much. Usually if people don't use a word that much, then it might confuse people. But I guess this is a word that people have familiarity with, even if they don't have a habit of using it much. Which is intriguing.

Anyways. In writing, I do use it more freely. And I do see it used more often in various writing contexts.

So yes, I would say those observations are pretty accurate.

---

To be honest, I would probably simplify the wording of the example sentence, and go with something more like "I contrived for them to meet." or "I contrived for him to meet her".

However, that is just a style decision. Because both "I contrived that he would meet her." and "I contrived for him to meet her." are correct and fine to use. But depending on the writing style and sentence structure styles you are using it with, then one of them might better "match" the style of how you are writing everything around it.

So if I wanted to write using a more formal style, old-fashioned style, a more "reminds me of British-y things" type style [like for a more Regency/Jane-Austin type of story], then I could easily use "I contrived that he would meet her." and it would fit perfectly with a lot of those writing styles.

And I could use "I contrived for him to meet her" in some other writing styles, from semi-formal to semi old-fashioned to more serious types of modern styles, etc.

And if I wanted a more casual, conversational, modern style, (or modern formal), then I agree that "I arranged for them to meet" / "I arranged for them to be introduced" / "I arranged for them to meet each other" would all work great for that too. 
...although "I arranged for him to meet her" could easily sound like "I sent him to meet her at the bus station and to give her a ride back" instead of the "I arranged for them to meet each other" meaning that I was assuming that we meant here.

Although, I just realised that's true for most of this. Because "meeting somebody" can mean either "meeting up with someone at a pre-arranged location" or "making their acquaintance for the first time". But usually the context keeps that from becoming a problem, because usually one meaning fits and the other meaning clearly does not fit. But this discussion has no context for where the sentence is being used, so I guess both meanings are possible. lol English is sneaky like that sometimes. =)

I am not sure if both of the following sentences “I contrived that he should meet her.”and “I contrived that he would meet her.”have the same meaning and nuance and they are interchangeable with each other.Could you please tell me? See a translation

I am not sure if both of the following sentences
“I contrived that he should meet her.”
and
“I contrived that he would meet her.”
have the same meaning and nuance and they are interchangeable with each other.

Could you please tell me?

See a translation