No transport, no trade

[Jewel Aung]

Without changing the meaning of the sentence "No transport, no trade.", is it correct to write "If there is no transport, there wouldn't be any trade."?
Please kindly explain the correct answer to me. Thank you.

 

[Tarheel]

It's clearly a slogan, not a sentence. However, I don't know what the context is so I don't know what it means.

I am never mean with my explanations.

(Please don't get in the habit of thanking me ahead of time.)

 

[probus]

Your version is fine @JewelAung.

 

[Tarheel]

Without changing the meaning of the sentence "No transport, no trade.", is it correct to write "If there is no transport, there wouldn't be any trade."?
Please kindly explain the correct answer to me. Thank you.

I would say:

If there isn't any transport there won't be any trade.

But I wouldn't know what I was talking about, so I wouldn't say that.

 

[Tdol]

There is no trade without transport.
Without transport, there is no trade.

 

[5jj]

"If there is no transport, there wouldn't be any trade."?

If you are going to use a conditional construction, then you need:

If there is no transport there won't be any trade.
or:
If there were no transport there wouldn't be any trade.

 

[Tarheel]

There is no trade without transport.
Without transport, there is no trade.

In the first post it looks like a political slogan. Now it's the same as saying there's no shipping without ships. (Which is stating the obvious.)

 

[Tdol]

Mind you, the original was a slogan. However, it's profundity is simply the link to moving goods and trade.