0
Rotter Posted 15 years ago
Grammar
Would or will
The Australian computer expert, 40, is wanted for questioning on three allegations of sexual assault, including one of rape, said to have taken place in Stockholm in August last year.
The claims were made by two female Wikileaks volunteers.
His lawyers say the claims against him are not extradition offences, and sending him to Sweden would be an abuse of process breaching his human rights.
Mr Emmerson told the court the extradition order was flawed as it was sought "not for prosecution but for the purposes of an investigation", which amounted to a "disproportionate" use of the European arrest warrant.
He said he was not questioning the credibility of the women who made the allegations, nor the "genuineness of their feelings of regret about having had consensual sex with Mr Assange".
He also said he was not challenging the fact they found his sexual behaviour "disreputable, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing towards the boundaries of what they were comfortable with".
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
My question is on the following sentence of the above.
His lawyers say the claims against him are not extradition offences, and sending him to Sweden would be an abuse of process breaching his human rights.
I don't know the reason to write 'would' here.
Are the lawyers uncertain about breaching his human rights?
Plese tell me.
It should be 'will' here.
His lawyers say the claims against him are not extradition offences, and sending him to Sweden will be an abuse of process breaching his human rights.
The claims were made by two female Wikileaks volunteers.
His lawyers say the claims against him are not extradition offences, and sending him to Sweden would be an abuse of process breaching his human rights.
Mr Emmerson told the court the extradition order was flawed as it was sought "not for prosecution but for the purposes of an investigation", which amounted to a "disproportionate" use of the European arrest warrant.
He said he was not questioning the credibility of the women who made the allegations, nor the "genuineness of their feelings of regret about having had consensual sex with Mr Assange".
He also said he was not challenging the fact they found his sexual behaviour "disreputable, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing towards the boundaries of what they were comfortable with".
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
My question is on the following sentence of the above.
His lawyers say the claims against him are not extradition offences, and sending him to Sweden would be an abuse of process breaching his human rights.
I don't know the reason to write 'would' here.
Are the lawyers uncertain about breaching his human rights?
Plese tell me.
It should be 'will' here.
His lawyers say the claims against him are not extradition offences, and sending him to Sweden will be an abuse of process breaching his human rights.
Top answer
Hi, My question is on the following sentence of the above. His lawyers say the claims against him are not extradition offences, and sending him to Sweden would be an abuse of process breaching his human rights. I don't know the reason to write 'would' here.
- Hi, My question is on the following sentence of the above.
- His lawyers say the claims against him are not extradition offences, and sending him to Sweden would be an abuse of process breaching his human rights.
- I don't know the reason to write 'would' here.
- Are the lawyers uncertain about breaching his human rights?
- His lawyers are trying to protect his human rights.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
4 Answers
0
Hi,
My question is on the following sentence of the above.
His lawyers say the claims against him are not extradition offences, and sending him to Sweden would be an abuse of process breaching his human rights.
I don't know the reason to write 'would' here.
Are the lawyers
My question is on the following sentence of the above.
His lawyers say the claims against him are not extradition offences, and sending him to Sweden would be an abuse of process breaching his human rights.
I don't know the reason to write 'would' here.
Are the lawyers
00
Rottersending him to Sweden would be an abuse of process breaching his human rights.This is an implicit second conditional.
If they sent him to Sweden, it (the sending) would be an abuse of process ....
Nobody said he was really going to be sent to Sweden. They're just imagining the consequences if they did send him there.
I
00
Clive and CJ have given me 2 excellent replies.
You are all clever at English grammar.
If someone asks where I am going for holidays, I can say one of the following.
1. Maybe I will go to Paris.
2. I may go to Paris.
3. I might go to Paris.
4. I would go to Paris.
You are all clever at English grammar.
If someone asks where I am going for holidays, I can say one of the following.
1. Maybe I will go to Paris.
2. I may go to Paris.
3. I might go to Paris.
4. I would go to Paris.
00
- Where are you going?
- I would go to Paris.
This conversational exchange doesn't work because you were given no conditions to consider and no situations to imagine when you were asked the question.
General uncertainty is expressed with might or may or maybe with will, not with would.
______________
- I would go to Paris.
This conversational exchange doesn't work because you were given no conditions to consider and no situations to imagine when you were asked the question.
General uncertainty is expressed with might or may or maybe with will, not with would.
______________
0
Related Questions