0

Children should be disciplined to abide by the law from an early age. Otherwise, it would be tough to teach them the importance of being law-abiding when they turned to crime and became disobedient.

In the above text. I wanted to say that children should be taught to be law-abiding before they become disobedient. I am talking about children in general. So I think it is natural to say "would / turned". But I am curious to know if the following version is also OK or not?

Children should be disciplined to abide by the law from an early age. Otherwise, it will be tough to teach them the importance of being law-abiding when they turn to crime and become disobedient.

I think my version is better because it is sort of imaginary situation, while the second version is kind of prediction about the future and it suggests this idea that children will certainly become disobedient which I do not want to say at all. Am I correct?

Improve this question
1
  • 2
    I don't like the transitive usage disciplined [to do something]. I'm fine with Children should be taught to do X, but that doesn't necessarily imply disciplining them (punishing them when / if they fail to learn as required). And so far as I'm concerned there is no syntactically defensible short construction to convey the sense of children should be taught to do X, using discipline if necessary.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Oct 2, 2021 at 15:04

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

Neither works for me. One problem in both is the word "when". It suggests that they will turn to crime. Replacing "when" with "if" weakens the statement and suggests that becoming bad may not happen - which is the purpose of the whole thing. The ordering of "disobedient" and "crime" also seems wrong.

That leads me to suggest:

Children should be disciplined to abide by the law from an early age. Otherwise, it will be difficult to teach them the importance of being law-abiding if they become disobedient or even turn to crime.

But I am not happy with this version. The "being law-abiding" seems to strong. Whilst following the law is very important, repeating the word may hide the need for emphasing general good behaviour. Perhaps the following is suitable:

Children should be disciplined to behave correctly and to abide by the law from an early age. Otherwise, it may be difficult to correct them if they become disobedient or even turn to crime.

Improve this answer
1

Yes. Your first version, using the conditional, refers to a hypothetical situation. Using will, as you say, implies a prediction about some particular children, which is not what you intend.

Improve this answer
3
  • 1
    I think that OP's first version refers to an actual situation, where the verb should simply implies this is how things are, which is exactly how they should be. I say this because Otherwise [if the current situation weren't true] it would be [some hypothetical alternative situation]. But of course that's assuming the text is "valid" - not just erroneous output from a non-native speaker.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Oct 2, 2021 at 14:58
  • @FumbleFingers Does it improve the text if I change should to must? I mean Children must be ... would be OK? Or I have to change it completely? For example: It is necessary to teach children to abide by the law ... ?
    – a.toraby
    Commented Oct 3, 2021 at 12:37
  • I don't know about "improve" - that all depends on whether you want the "obligatory" sense of must or the "recommended" sense of should. Note that must plays different syntactic functions in You must be quiet1 (in the immediate future) and You must be Dr Livingstone! (present - right now).
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Oct 4, 2021 at 14:31

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .