1

When talking abouts facts should we use would or will ?

  • There would/will be no life without water.
  • There would/will be no women without men.
  • There would/will be no theft without thieves.
1

The choice of verb depends on the context.

Imagine a situation in which a farmer learns that the river on which his cattle depend has dried up completely.

He would then state:

There will be no life without water.

But if the river was only drying up gradually, threatening the future existence of the farm, the farmer might say:

There would be no life without water.

That's to say that that the first statement addresses an unconditional situation; it is simply a statement of fact.

The second statement addresses a hypothetical situation that might or might not be realised. The result depends on certain conditions being met - no water, no men, no thieves.

0

"Will be" refers to the future. "Would be" refers to a hypothetical situation which may be in the pass or present.

  • I would have to think about this, but you may be on to something here. For instance, using "would". To use "would", you could rephrase the concept as an "if -- then" statement. Using "will" denotes an amount of certainty, or a high degree of confidence in the statement. But "would" statements do not essentially indicate any serious differentiation. At the moment, I am inclined to think there is no serious difference between the intended meanings. – Corvus B Aug 31 '17 at 3:34
0

Practically, I can't see any difference between them.

  • There would be no life without water. (no water=no life)
  • There will be no life without water. (no water=no life)

The only difference is in that a hypothetical situation "would" can work for past, present, and future, while the conditional situation "will" works only for future.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.