you'll be fined because you'll break the law

[EngLearner]

John and Peter are in Peter's car. Peter is the driver. They've stopped and are waiting because the traffic light is red. Peter tells John that he wants to ignore the traffic light and charge forward. John replies:

Don't do that! If you run the red light, you'll be fined because you'll break the law.

I wrote the above. In this case, "you'll break" is appropriate, while "you'll be breaking" isn't, the reason being that breaking the law is seen as a punctual action, and not a recurrent or continuous one. Do you agree?

 

[emsr2d2]

There's multiple ways of saying that.

If you do that, you'll be breaking the law.
Doing that would break the law.
You'd break the law if you did that.

Using "you'll be breaking" would be more common for native English speakers than "you'll be".

My response would be "Don't be an idiot".

 

[EngLearner]

Using "you'll be breaking" would be more common for native English speakers than "you'll be".

Do you mean more common than "you'll break"?

 

[jutfrank]

Do you agree?

No. In fact, I think you have almost everything wrong there.

 

[EngLearner]

But the action is not a continuous one, nor is it recurrent: running a red light takes a second. Within that timeframe, the breaking of the law takes place. Isn't that correct?

 

[jutfrank]

But the action is not a continuous one

Yes, it is. The verb 'break' in 'break the law' is not always aspectually similar to the verb 'break' as in 'break your leg'. (Though sometimes it is.)

Imagine you're speeding down the highway over the speed limit. I might say to you 'You're breaking the law!', meant to express a continuous action.

 

[EngLearner]

John and Peter are standing in front of a table on which a vase stands. Peter picks up a hammer from the table and tells John that he's going to hit the vase. John says to him:

A. Don't do that! If you hit it, you'll break it.

Peter tells John that he's been offered a job in which, if he were to accept it, his task would be to break vases, cups, and other similar glass objects with a hammer. John doesn't like the idea and says to him:

B. Don't accept that job! If you do, you'll be breaking all those beautiful things that people spent hours creating. Basically, you'll be destroying someone else's work of art.

I know the context is silly, but this is for practicing the simple and continuous aspects. In sentence A, the simple aspect is used because the action is a one-off. In sentence B, the continuous aspect is used because the action is recurrent. Does it work like that?

 

[jutfrank]

It does, yes.