When you come across a sentence like ‘A bill that would ban holding and talking on a cell phone while driving,’ the use of ‘would’ can be puzzling. This is common in English when discussing potential or proposed actions, especially in the context of legislation. In this article, we will explain why ‘would’ is used in this case and how it relates to the passage of a law.
Understanding ‘Would’ in Proposed Legislation
The word ‘would’ is often used to talk about actions that are not yet definite but are proposed or hypothetical. In the case of a bill, it has not yet become law; it is still in the process of being discussed or debated. Using ‘would’ indicates that the action is not certain or guaranteed. So, when the sentence says, ‘A bill that would ban holding and talking on a cell phone,’ it means that the bill proposes to take that action if it becomes law.
Why Not Use ‘Will’?
‘Will’ is used for actions that are definite and certain to happen, often in the future. Since the bill is still under consideration, it has not yet been enacted, and the action described (banning cell phone use while driving) is not guaranteed. Therefore, ‘would’ is the appropriate choice to indicate a proposal rather than a certain future event.
The Passage of a Law and the Change in Usage
Once the bill becomes law, the wording will change to reflect the certainty of the action. For example, after the law is passed, we might say, ‘The law bans holding and talking on a cell phone while driving.’ At that point, ‘would’ is no longer necessary because the law is in effect and the action is definite.
Summary
In summary, ‘would’ is used in proposed legislation to indicate something that is not yet definite or certain. It is used to describe actions that could happen if the bill passes into law. Once the bill becomes law, ‘would’ is replaced by more definitive language, such as ‘bans’ or ‘prohibits.’ Understanding the use of ‘would’ helps clarify the distinction between a proposal and an established law.
コメント