a vote for any party <would/will> be a vote for

Adarsh Anand

New Member
Hindi
Someone commented following line.

"This time,a vote for Democrats(or any party) would be a vote for progress;a vote for third front would be a vote for instability and indecision."

I don't think that there is need of 'would' here.Election is going to happen.Nothing is hypothetical.Then why is 'will' not used here?
 
  • Hermione Golightly

    Senior Member
    British English
    The election is going to take place, but people have to decide how to vote. The hypothesis is unstated but understood: '(if you vote for this party) you would be voting for progress'.
     
    Last edited:

    Adarsh Anand

    New Member
    Hindi
    The election is going to take place, but people haave to decide how to vote. The hypothesis is unstated but understood: '(if you vote for this party) you would be voting for progress'.
    What is hypothesis in it.Please elaborate it.We say "if you study for exam,you will pass" which is not hypothesis,what is different in "if you vote for tHis party"

    Or,you wanna say that hypothesis is "you will be voting for progress" but nobody can actually vote directly to progress because it is not 'progress' thing which is contending.Is it?
     
    Last edited:

    e2efour

    Senior Member
    UK English
    Your sentence in #1 (the source of which you should quote, if possible) seems to amount to a prediction.

    Predictions are commonly stated by using will or would, and there may be little practical difference.
    Someone who uses will might say that the prediction is more certain to be correct than with the use of would.

    In writing we would say If you voted for this party, you would be voting for progress. In speech you may find the present tense used with would (If you vote for this party, you will (would?) be voting for progress, where would is not normally used in writing).
     
    Last edited:

    Adarsh Anand

    New Member
    Hindi
    Your sentence in #1 (the source of which you should quote, if possible) seems to amount to a prediction.

    Predictions are commonly stated by using will or would, and there may be little practical difference.
    Someone who uses will might say that the prediction is more certain to be correct than with the use of would.

    In writing we would say If you voted for this party, you would be voting for progress. In speech you may find the present tense used with would (If you vote for this party, you will (would?) be voting for progress, where would is not normally used in writing).
    I donot think that it is prediction otherwise 'may' or 'might' would have been used.
     

    se16teddy

    Senior Member
    English - England
    "This time,a vote for Democrats(or any party) would be a vote for progress;a vote for third front would be a vote for instability and indecision."
    I don't think that there is need of 'would' here.Election is going to happen.Nothing is hypothetical.Then why is 'will' not used here?
    it is not exactly hypothetical: this is a conditional sentence. The implied protasis is indicated by the phrase “a vote for Democrats”. If you voted for the Democrats, it would be a vote for progress.
     
    Last edited:

    Hermione Golightly

    Senior Member
    British English
    'Will' is used for predictions and carries a strong sense of certainty that what is predicted is sure to happen.
    When I say 'You will feel better if you take your medicine', I am sure of that.
    When I say you 'may/might feel better', I am not so sure - I think it's possible, but I'm not certain.

    I do not think that it is prediction otherwise 'may' or 'might' would have been used.
    This is not true.
    The modal verbs have a variety of functions and the differences in meaning can be very subtle. 'May' and 'might' are not the first choice for 'prediction'.
    You can view 'would' as less certain than 'will'.

    Read Teddy's post #4 again.

    As regards my suggestion that there is a hypothetical aspect as part of a conditional, we do not always state the first half of condition, it is understood and we do not always stick to the the various forms of 'conditional' as taught in the grammar books.
    That means we might use a simple present in the first half and the past form in the second half, instead of 'If you worked hard, you would pass'. That would imply that they do not work hard.

    If you work hard you would pass the exam.
    If you work hard you might pass the exam.
    If you work hard you could pass the exam.

    I would never say 'if you work hard, you will pass' because I cannot guarantee it - I can't see into the future.

    It's the same with the vote. What policies are promised may never be fulfilled.

    You need to know that 'wanna' is not a suitable form to use on a language forum, or in any serious writing.
     

    nh01

    Senior Member
    Turkish
    I would never say 'if you work hard, you will pass' because I cannot guarantee it - I can't see into the future.
    So, we can't use "be going to" here too, I think. But what about using simple present? Thanks in advance.

    "If you work hard, you pass."
     

    se16teddy

    Senior Member
    English - England
    I would never say 'if you work hard, you will pass' because I cannot guarantee it - I can't see into the future.
    I do not think that it is prediction otherwise 'may' or 'might' would have been used.
    This is because you are cautious people and know that we can never truly know the future. But many people - for example weather forecasters - are perfectly happy to make more or less rash predictions, and the English language is happy to help them to do so with the word will.
     
    Last edited:
    < Previous | Next >
    Top