The local business community is working to amend a law that would increase foreign competition
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
'The local business community is working to amend a law that would increase foreign competition.'
Does this sentence mean:
1. 'the community is trying to amend a law that is already increasing foreign competition to one that is not'; or
2. 'it is trying to amend a law that is not increasing foreign competition now to one that is going to do'?
meaning
edited 6 hours ago
TrevorD
10.7k22458
asked Mar 9 at 4:56
user335567user335567
91
add a comment |
'The local business community is working to amend a law that would increase foreign competition.'
Does this sentence mean:
1. 'the community is trying to amend a law that is already increasing foreign competition to one that is not'; or
2. 'it is trying to amend a law that is not increasing foreign competition now to one that is going to do'?
meaning
edited 6 hours ago
TrevorD
10.7k22458
asked Mar 9 at 4:56
user335567user335567
91
The sentence is poorly constructed and is not clear. As written, "that would [...]" modifies "law", but that doesn't make sense as the proposal of an amendment implied the law is already codified. I assume then that the amendment will increase foreign competition.
– R Mac
Mar 9 at 5:14
add a comment |
'The local business community is working to amend a law that would increase foreign competition.'
Does this sentence mean:
1. 'the community is trying to amend a law that is already increasing foreign competition to one that is not'; or
2. 'it is trying to amend a law that is not increasing foreign competition now to one that is going to do'?
meaning
edited 6 hours ago
TrevorD
10.7k22458
asked Mar 9 at 4:56
user335567user335567
91
'The local business community is working to amend a law that would increase foreign competition.'
Does this sentence mean:
1. 'the community is trying to amend a law that is already increasing foreign competition to one that is not'; or
2. 'it is trying to amend a law that is not increasing foreign competition now to one that is going to do'?
meaning
meaning
edited 6 hours ago
TrevorD
10.7k22458
asked Mar 9 at 4:56
user335567user335567
91
edited 6 hours ago
TrevorD
10.7k22458
asked Mar 9 at 4:56
user335567user335567
91
edited 6 hours ago
TrevorD
10.7k22458
edited 6 hours ago
TrevorD
10.7k22458
edited 6 hours ago
TrevorD
10.7k22458
10.7k22458
asked Mar 9 at 4:56
user335567user335567
91
asked Mar 9 at 4:56
user335567user335567
91
asked Mar 9 at 4:56
user335567user335567
91
91
The sentence is poorly constructed and is not clear. As written, "that would [...]" modifies "law", but that doesn't make sense as the proposal of an amendment implied the law is already codified. I assume then that the amendment will increase foreign competition.
– R Mac
Mar 9 at 5:14
add a comment |
The sentence is poorly constructed and is not clear. As written, "that would [...]" modifies "law", but that doesn't make sense as the proposal of an amendment implied the law is already codified. I assume then that the amendment will increase foreign competition.
– R Mac
Mar 9 at 5:14
The sentence is poorly constructed and is not clear. As written, "that would [...]" modifies "law", but that doesn't make sense as the proposal of an amendment implied the law is already codified. I assume then that the amendment will increase foreign competition.
– R Mac
Mar 9 at 5:14
The sentence is poorly constructed and is not clear. As written, "that would [...]" modifies "law", but that doesn't make sense as the proposal of an amendment implied the law is already codified. I assume then that the amendment will increase foreign competition.
– R Mac
Mar 9 at 5:14
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The sentence is ambiguous—although the use of would at least suggests that it's more likely interpreted to mean it's the amendment that will increase foreign competition.
Rephrasing the sentence makes one or the other meaning more explicit.
The local business community is working to amend a law that increases foreign competition.
The local business community is working to amend a law that has increased foreign competition.
Here, it's clear that an existing law is responsible for an increase in foreign competition, and the amendment seeks to change that in some way. The first sentence would be used if the law to be amended was only recently introduced, while the second would be used if it has been in effect for some time.
The local business community is working to amend a law in order to increase foreign competition.
In this version, it's clear that the amendment will serve to increase foreign competition from whatever state it's currently in.
answered Mar 9 at 11:26
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
19.9k32647
I think it's quite clear except that the term should be "bill" rather than "law". Stricly speaking a bill does not become law until it is passed and becomes an act. However many people, including journalists, use the word "law" to mean "bill" as well as "act". The sentence reads to me, either as though the bill has been presented and is being debated, or it has been passed but has a delayed implementation. I also believe that the business community is concerned that the provisions of the "law" as it stands would make them more vulnerable to foreign competition.
– BoldBen
Mar 10 at 12:04
@BoldBen How do you know that they are not "working to amend [an existing] law [in order that it] would increase foreign competition." "Amend" clearly suggests they are trying to change something that already exists: what makes you think that they are trying to create a new law?
– TrevorD
yesterday
@TrevorD I think it's a new law because the OP's quote says "A law that would increase foreign competition". If it was an existing law the quote would read "A law that inceases foreign competition". Also the idea that any group of business people would work to increase competition and, therefore, put themselves at a disadvantage is so unlikely that I find it incredible. Turkeys do not, normally, vote for Christmas.
– BoldBen
8 hours ago
1
@BoldBen Not necessarily. A law can take a while to have any noticeable effect. In a particular case, a law could already be in existence—but not produce any actual change for some period of time. It could be passed, after which people realize a mistake was made and want to change it.
– Jason Bassford
6 hours ago
@BoldBen I think we're agreed that the wording is unclear & ambiguous. In that case, I don't think that we can base any strong argument either way solely on whether is says "would increase" or "increases". One interpretation is that it's an existing law that already "increases foreign competition", and the business community is working to prevent any further increase in competition. Another interpretation is that it's an existing law that already relates to foreign trade and there is a proposal to amend it to "increase foreign competition" still further. ...
– TrevorD
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f488933%2fthe-local-business-community-is-working-to-amend-a-law-that-would-increase-forei%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The sentence is ambiguous—although the use of would at least suggests that it's more likely interpreted to mean it's the amendment that will increase foreign competition.
Rephrasing the sentence makes one or the other meaning more explicit.
The local business community is working to amend a law that increases foreign competition.
The local business community is working to amend a law that has increased foreign competition.
Here, it's clear that an existing law is responsible for an increase in foreign competition, and the amendment seeks to change that in some way. The first sentence would be used if the law to be amended was only recently introduced, while the second would be used if it has been in effect for some time.
The local business community is working to amend a law in order to increase foreign competition.
In this version, it's clear that the amendment will serve to increase foreign competition from whatever state it's currently in.
answered Mar 9 at 11:26
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
19.9k32647
I think it's quite clear except that the term should be "bill" rather than "law". Stricly speaking a bill does not become law until it is passed and becomes an act. However many people, including journalists, use the word "law" to mean "bill" as well as "act". The sentence reads to me, either as though the bill has been presented and is being debated, or it has been passed but has a delayed implementation. I also believe that the business community is concerned that the provisions of the "law" as it stands would make them more vulnerable to foreign competition.
– BoldBen
Mar 10 at 12:04
@BoldBen How do you know that they are not "working to amend [an existing] law [in order that it] would increase foreign competition." "Amend" clearly suggests they are trying to change something that already exists: what makes you think that they are trying to create a new law?
– TrevorD
yesterday
@TrevorD I think it's a new law because the OP's quote says "A law that would increase foreign competition". If it was an existing law the quote would read "A law that inceases foreign competition". Also the idea that any group of business people would work to increase competition and, therefore, put themselves at a disadvantage is so unlikely that I find it incredible. Turkeys do not, normally, vote for Christmas.
– BoldBen
8 hours ago
1
@BoldBen Not necessarily. A law can take a while to have any noticeable effect. In a particular case, a law could already be in existence—but not produce any actual change for some period of time. It could be passed, after which people realize a mistake was made and want to change it.
– Jason Bassford
6 hours ago
@BoldBen I think we're agreed that the wording is unclear & ambiguous. In that case, I don't think that we can base any strong argument either way solely on whether is says "would increase" or "increases". One interpretation is that it's an existing law that already "increases foreign competition", and the business community is working to prevent any further increase in competition. Another interpretation is that it's an existing law that already relates to foreign trade and there is a proposal to amend it to "increase foreign competition" still further. ...
– TrevorD
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
The sentence is ambiguous—although the use of would at least suggests that it's more likely interpreted to mean it's the amendment that will increase foreign competition.
Rephrasing the sentence makes one or the other meaning more explicit.
The local business community is working to amend a law that increases foreign competition.
The local business community is working to amend a law that has increased foreign competition.
Here, it's clear that an existing law is responsible for an increase in foreign competition, and the amendment seeks to change that in some way. The first sentence would be used if the law to be amended was only recently introduced, while the second would be used if it has been in effect for some time.
The local business community is working to amend a law in order to increase foreign competition.
In this version, it's clear that the amendment will serve to increase foreign competition from whatever state it's currently in.
answered Mar 9 at 11:26
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
19.9k32647
I think it's quite clear except that the term should be "bill" rather than "law". Stricly speaking a bill does not become law until it is passed and becomes an act. However many people, including journalists, use the word "law" to mean "bill" as well as "act". The sentence reads to me, either as though the bill has been presented and is being debated, or it has been passed but has a delayed implementation. I also believe that the business community is concerned that the provisions of the "law" as it stands would make them more vulnerable to foreign competition.
– BoldBen
Mar 10 at 12:04
@BoldBen How do you know that they are not "working to amend [an existing] law [in order that it] would increase foreign competition." "Amend" clearly suggests they are trying to change something that already exists: what makes you think that they are trying to create a new law?
– TrevorD
yesterday
@TrevorD I think it's a new law because the OP's quote says "A law that would increase foreign competition". If it was an existing law the quote would read "A law that inceases foreign competition". Also the idea that any group of business people would work to increase competition and, therefore, put themselves at a disadvantage is so unlikely that I find it incredible. Turkeys do not, normally, vote for Christmas.
– BoldBen
8 hours ago
1
@BoldBen Not necessarily. A law can take a while to have any noticeable effect. In a particular case, a law could already be in existence—but not produce any actual change for some period of time. It could be passed, after which people realize a mistake was made and want to change it.
– Jason Bassford
6 hours ago
@BoldBen I think we're agreed that the wording is unclear & ambiguous. In that case, I don't think that we can base any strong argument either way solely on whether is says "would increase" or "increases". One interpretation is that it's an existing law that already "increases foreign competition", and the business community is working to prevent any further increase in competition. Another interpretation is that it's an existing law that already relates to foreign trade and there is a proposal to amend it to "increase foreign competition" still further. ...
– TrevorD
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
The sentence is ambiguous—although the use of would at least suggests that it's more likely interpreted to mean it's the amendment that will increase foreign competition.
Rephrasing the sentence makes one or the other meaning more explicit.
The local business community is working to amend a law that increases foreign competition.
The local business community is working to amend a law that has increased foreign competition.
Here, it's clear that an existing law is responsible for an increase in foreign competition, and the amendment seeks to change that in some way. The first sentence would be used if the law to be amended was only recently introduced, while the second would be used if it has been in effect for some time.
The local business community is working to amend a law in order to increase foreign competition.
In this version, it's clear that the amendment will serve to increase foreign competition from whatever state it's currently in.
answered Mar 9 at 11:26
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
19.9k32647
The sentence is ambiguous—although the use of would at least suggests that it's more likely interpreted to mean it's the amendment that will increase foreign competition.
Rephrasing the sentence makes one or the other meaning more explicit.
The local business community is working to amend a law that increases foreign competition.
The local business community is working to amend a law that has increased foreign competition.
Here, it's clear that an existing law is responsible for an increase in foreign competition, and the amendment seeks to change that in some way. The first sentence would be used if the law to be amended was only recently introduced, while the second would be used if it has been in effect for some time.
The local business community is working to amend a law in order to increase foreign competition.
In this version, it's clear that the amendment will serve to increase foreign competition from whatever state it's currently in.
answered Mar 9 at 11:26
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
19.9k32647
answered Mar 9 at 11:26
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
19.9k32647
answered Mar 9 at 11:26
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
19.9k32647
answered Mar 9 at 11:26
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
19.9k32647
19.9k32647
I think it's quite clear except that the term should be "bill" rather than "law". Stricly speaking a bill does not become law until it is passed and becomes an act. However many people, including journalists, use the word "law" to mean "bill" as well as "act". The sentence reads to me, either as though the bill has been presented and is being debated, or it has been passed but has a delayed implementation. I also believe that the business community is concerned that the provisions of the "law" as it stands would make them more vulnerable to foreign competition.
– BoldBen
Mar 10 at 12:04
@BoldBen How do you know that they are not "working to amend [an existing] law [in order that it] would increase foreign competition." "Amend" clearly suggests they are trying to change something that already exists: what makes you think that they are trying to create a new law?
– TrevorD
yesterday
@TrevorD I think it's a new law because the OP's quote says "A law that would increase foreign competition". If it was an existing law the quote would read "A law that inceases foreign competition". Also the idea that any group of business people would work to increase competition and, therefore, put themselves at a disadvantage is so unlikely that I find it incredible. Turkeys do not, normally, vote for Christmas.
– BoldBen
8 hours ago
1
@BoldBen Not necessarily. A law can take a while to have any noticeable effect. In a particular case, a law could already be in existence—but not produce any actual change for some period of time. It could be passed, after which people realize a mistake was made and want to change it.
– Jason Bassford
6 hours ago
@BoldBen I think we're agreed that the wording is unclear & ambiguous. In that case, I don't think that we can base any strong argument either way solely on whether is says "would increase" or "increases". One interpretation is that it's an existing law that already "increases foreign competition", and the business community is working to prevent any further increase in competition. Another interpretation is that it's an existing law that already relates to foreign trade and there is a proposal to amend it to "increase foreign competition" still further. ...
– TrevorD
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
I think it's quite clear except that the term should be "bill" rather than "law". Stricly speaking a bill does not become law until it is passed and becomes an act. However many people, including journalists, use the word "law" to mean "bill" as well as "act". The sentence reads to me, either as though the bill has been presented and is being debated, or it has been passed but has a delayed implementation. I also believe that the business community is concerned that the provisions of the "law" as it stands would make them more vulnerable to foreign competition.
– BoldBen
Mar 10 at 12:04
@BoldBen How do you know that they are not "working to amend [an existing] law [in order that it] would increase foreign competition." "Amend" clearly suggests they are trying to change something that already exists: what makes you think that they are trying to create a new law?
– TrevorD
yesterday
@TrevorD I think it's a new law because the OP's quote says "A law that would increase foreign competition". If it was an existing law the quote would read "A law that inceases foreign competition". Also the idea that any group of business people would work to increase competition and, therefore, put themselves at a disadvantage is so unlikely that I find it incredible. Turkeys do not, normally, vote for Christmas.
– BoldBen
8 hours ago
1
@BoldBen Not necessarily. A law can take a while to have any noticeable effect. In a particular case, a law could already be in existence—but not produce any actual change for some period of time. It could be passed, after which people realize a mistake was made and want to change it.
– Jason Bassford
6 hours ago
@BoldBen I think we're agreed that the wording is unclear & ambiguous. In that case, I don't think that we can base any strong argument either way solely on whether is says "would increase" or "increases". One interpretation is that it's an existing law that already "increases foreign competition", and the business community is working to prevent any further increase in competition. Another interpretation is that it's an existing law that already relates to foreign trade and there is a proposal to amend it to "increase foreign competition" still further. ...
– TrevorD
6 hours ago
I think it's quite clear except that the term should be "bill" rather than "law". Stricly speaking a bill does not become law until it is passed and becomes an act. However many people, including journalists, use the word "law" to mean "bill" as well as "act". The sentence reads to me, either as though the bill has been presented and is being debated, or it has been passed but has a delayed implementation. I also believe that the business community is concerned that the provisions of the "law" as it stands would make them more vulnerable to foreign competition.
– BoldBen
Mar 10 at 12:04
I think it's quite clear except that the term should be "bill" rather than "law". Stricly speaking a bill does not become law until it is passed and becomes an act. However many people, including journalists, use the word "law" to mean "bill" as well as "act". The sentence reads to me, either as though the bill has been presented and is being debated, or it has been passed but has a delayed implementation. I also believe that the business community is concerned that the provisions of the "law" as it stands would make them more vulnerable to foreign competition.
– BoldBen
Mar 10 at 12:04
@BoldBen How do you know that they are not "working to amend [an existing] law [in order that it] would increase foreign competition." "Amend" clearly suggests they are trying to change something that already exists: what makes you think that they are trying to create a new law?
– TrevorD
yesterday
@BoldBen How do you know that they are not "working to amend [an existing] law [in order that it] would increase foreign competition." "Amend" clearly suggests they are trying to change something that already exists: what makes you think that they are trying to create a new law?
– TrevorD
yesterday
@TrevorD I think it's a new law because the OP's quote says "A law that would increase foreign competition". If it was an existing law the quote would read "A law that inceases foreign competition". Also the idea that any group of business people would work to increase competition and, therefore, put themselves at a disadvantage is so unlikely that I find it incredible. Turkeys do not, normally, vote for Christmas.
– BoldBen
8 hours ago
@TrevorD I think it's a new law because the OP's quote says "A law that would increase foreign competition". If it was an existing law the quote would read "A law that inceases foreign competition". Also the idea that any group of business people would work to increase competition and, therefore, put themselves at a disadvantage is so unlikely that I find it incredible. Turkeys do not, normally, vote for Christmas.
– BoldBen
8 hours ago
1
1
@BoldBen Not necessarily. A law can take a while to have any noticeable effect. In a particular case, a law could already be in existence—but not produce any actual change for some period of time. It could be passed, after which people realize a mistake was made and want to change it.
– Jason Bassford
6 hours ago
@BoldBen Not necessarily. A law can take a while to have any noticeable effect. In a particular case, a law could already be in existence—but not produce any actual change for some period of time. It could be passed, after which people realize a mistake was made and want to change it.
– Jason Bassford
6 hours ago
@BoldBen I think we're agreed that the wording is unclear & ambiguous. In that case, I don't think that we can base any strong argument either way solely on whether is says "would increase" or "increases". One interpretation is that it's an existing law that already "increases foreign competition", and the business community is working to prevent any further increase in competition. Another interpretation is that it's an existing law that already relates to foreign trade and there is a proposal to amend it to "increase foreign competition" still further. ...
– TrevorD
6 hours ago
@BoldBen I think we're agreed that the wording is unclear & ambiguous. In that case, I don't think that we can base any strong argument either way solely on whether is says "would increase" or "increases". One interpretation is that it's an existing law that already "increases foreign competition", and the business community is working to prevent any further increase in competition. Another interpretation is that it's an existing law that already relates to foreign trade and there is a proposal to amend it to "increase foreign competition" still further. ...
– TrevorD
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f488933%2fthe-local-business-community-is-working-to-amend-a-law-that-would-increase-forei%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
The sentence is poorly constructed and is not clear. As written, "that would [...]" modifies "law", but that doesn't make sense as the proposal of an amendment implied the law is already codified. I assume then that the amendment will increase foreign competition.
– R Mac
Mar 9 at 5:14