Printable View
The Victorian authorities have already toughened laws regarding certain dog breeds and any American pitbull terrier not registered by its owner by the end of this month will be destroyed.
While the new laws apply only in Victoria, national Attorney-General Robert has indicated that he would apply similar legislation across the country.
Why is 'will' used in the first paragraph, while 'would' is used instead of 'will'. I think 'will' is the correct verb. Am I correct?
Thanks.
I can only assume that it's a certainty that those new rules will apply in the state of Victoria at this time. However, the Attorney General has said that he would [like to?] apply the same rules across the whole country. Perhaps it is not absolutely certain yet that the same rules will apply in every state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tan Elaine
The first sentence speaks of a situation that has definitely been decided. The second sentence seems to indicate that this action is a proposal and is, therefore, less definite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tan Elaine
:up: I think this is generally right as far as the effective meaning is concerned, but that the implied words are not 'like to' (which trades on an old understanding of 'would' as meaning 'was inclined/minded to') but another clause: 'the Attorney General has said that he would apply the same rules across the whole country [if the various political procedures allowed it].Quote:
Originally Posted by emsr2d2
But Australian English is both very innovative and at the same time conservative, so the less wordy implication may be right! ;-)
b
hello,
actually will shows more probablity and would shows lesser probablities.
To me, the "would" in the second sentence is simply backshifting of reported speech.
"I will apply this to other states, " he said. -> "He said he would apply it to other states."
I don't think it does in this example. I agree with Raymott that it's backshifting- the probability is the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by akhtar sharifi