Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

29

Here is a good description of when to use shall: ...shall is used for the future tense with the first-person pronouns I and We: I shall, we shall. Will is used with the first-person (again, I refer to traditional usage) only when we wish to express determination. The opposite is true for the second-person (you) and third-person (he, she, ...


20

In trying to come up with some "reasoning" for your boss, I think you're likely to hit upon either a dead end or a an invented logic that is essentially a red herring. As in many cases, what you're dealing with is simply an arbitrary choice in how the language encodes something which indeed different languages arbitrarily encode in different ways. English ...


18

This question is quite broad, and I find it quite hard to come up with an answer that is comprehensive yet succinct, technically impeccable yet easy to understand. At the risk of failing miserably, I'll give it a try nonetheless. Will, would, and have are auxiliary verbs used to form different tenses. Will is used to form Future Simple, to describe ...


16

If 'when' is used to indicate a context in the future, the 'will' becomes redundant and 'when' is followed by the present form of whatever verb. In this case: when + subject + present simple , subject + future simple When I know the answer, I'll call you When he leaves for work, I'll telephone.


16

The rule you have been told has some validity, but is too general. English speakers don't use a will with simple future meaning after if: If the plan succeeds, I will come. not *If the plan will succeed, I will come. But will can also convey intention or willingness, so with an animate subject (especially second person) will can work If ...


15

In your sentence as amended, send is without a doubt in the present indicative tense (and it is not a conditional sentence). In English, however, the present tense does rather more than express what’s going on in the present. To talk about something that’s going on right now, we generally use be + the –ing form of the verb which describes the action or ...


13

No, they're not the same thing. Will be able to obviously talks about a future event, while can talks about the present. I can swim, so we should go to the pool. Means I can swim already, I learned it before and I'm capable of doing it now. I will be able to swim sometime in the future, as long as I take swimming lessons. Means I cannot ...


13

This topic seems to come up with some frequency here. Your teacher was overgeneralizing, I'm afraid. It's not wrong to use will this way; it's just that it may not mean what you want it to mean. In the case you mention, it means that you are commenting on the possibility that you may be willing to go there, which sounds at least odd, and seems very unlikely ...


13

In the old days, shall was used with the first person and will was used with the second and third persons. This is no longer the case. Neither word is becoming extinct. In fact they are not even endangered.


13

SUPPLEMENTARY to Colin Fine's answer: Colin Fine explains the most common use of will in if clauses, which is the use in your example. There are other such situations: when will is used emphatically in its habitual/insistent sense: If you will keep bothering me with questions you must expect some answers you don't like. when will is used in the ...


12

There is a slight difference in literal meaning between the two phrases, though it's not very significant: Going to the shops = you are at this moment on your way to the shops, or (more colloquially) you are planning to go, as in: "I'm going to the shops this afternoon." Going to go to the shops = you are just planning to go to the shops. Here, going means ...


12

It is indeed an "adjustment" of English grammar having to do with the complications of time travel. When causality in the future has its effects in the past, conditional statements become complicated. Perhaps the best comedic exploration of the effects of time travel on language was by Douglas Adams in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe: One of ...


12

In OP's examples, "in" and "after" both specify a future time relative to the present moment. There's no grammatical rule saying either preposition is correct or wrong - it's just idiomatic preference that most people would use "in". Given that "in" is a somewhat "metaphoric" usage here, I suspect there's a tendency to only use it in simple constructions ...


11

Would is conditional/hypothetical. Will is a modal verb used to form the indicative future tense. In both cases, a) and b) are both correct, and carry a different meaning. When would is used, it expresses a hypothetical situation, so: What would I do without you? ... asks a question about a hypothetical possibility - that I would be without you. ...


11

Yours is the correct option, but not because of clause order. The main difference is that you use if ... then I will, and your friend uses I would... if. Both the following are correct: If you don't fix the bug I will send you a patch. I will send you a patch if you don't fix the bug. However, replacing the will with would makes either one ...


11

It's an example of the past subjunctive: Past subjunctive Like the term present subjunctive, past subjunctive can be misunderstood, as it describes a form rather than a meaning. The past subjunctive is so named because it resembles the past indicative in form, but the difference between them is a difference in modality, not in temporality. For ...


10

Don't forget that 'shall' at the start of a question is used to make a suggestion: Shall we play tennis? But 'will' at the start of a question does not have the same meaning: Will we play tennis?


10

He has it backwards. The modal verb can, which means the same thing as to be able to, cannot be put into the future. If you want to say that modern medicine has the ability to cure cancer, you could say: We can cure cancer. or We are able to cure cancer. If you want to say that modern medicine will have the ability to cure cancer in the future, ...


10

As user FumbleFingers pointed out, "will never have been" is standard English: you can find it in many books over the centuries. Roughly, it indicates talking about the past at some future time. More precisely, "there will never have been X" means that at some future time, it will be true that "there has never been X". For instance, The new weapons have ...


10

The answer to your second question is that the sentence is just fine as it stands. “When will you be here?” and “What time will you be here?” are perfectly equivalent in all registers. The extra at sounds overly verbose and cumbersome. I would not call it “wrong”, but neither would — well, or should — anyone mark wrong a sentence without it. The answer ...


10

Were is the plural past tense form of be, used here in a counterfactual conditional idiom construction that is given various names, including "subjunctive", which often apply to other European languages, though not to English. In fact, however, tense is not what you need to know here. Tense only has to do with time -- past and present only in English -- and ...


10

You raise a valid concern. On the one hand, we often talk of periphrastic tenses (and other constructions); on the other, some insist that a tense should be confined to a single word. Others, again, hold that tense is a property of a sentence or clause, not of a word or phrase. Can this problem be solved at all? The short answer is: there are different ...


9

Using about to in this way is intended to create a sense of immediacy or urgency. If the company is "about to" go on a hiring spree, they will probably begin the hiring spree as soon as they can. As another example: I'm about to empty the garbage. A listener can assume I'm probably standing in front of the garbage can and I might have already removed ...


9

I assume section 3 and section 4 have both been published. In that case, it depends on the writer's intention. The first gives the impression that the reader may go straight to section 4 and be able to understand it without first finishing section 3, the second that section 4 will only make sense after the reader has finished section 3.


8

Using will (or shall) is the proper way to form the actual future tense, and is completely generic. IT can be used in any case in which you wish to refer to the future. Going to + verb is a shortcut construct that is commonly used in many situations. It is typically used to express occurrences in the near-future. In many cases however, particularly in ...


8

Both sound wrong to me. I think you mean to use future in the past: He promised he would be home tomorrow. He promised he would have been home tomorrow, while not grammatically incorrect implies that the whole situation is hypothetical and I think it is unlikely that this 'unreal' meaning is what you want to express. I cannot explain why I dislike ...


8

It’s the first person singular of the present tense indicative of the auxiliary verb ‘be’, followed by the ‘-ing’ form of the main verb ‘go’. Together they express progressive aspect, which typically describes an action taking place at the time of speaking. In this example, however, ‘go’ carries no sense of actual movement. The construction is one of the ...


8

Syntactically, yes, the sentence is correct. It's the Passive Future Progressive. The direct derivation is: Michael will be drinking water. >>> Water will be being drunk by Michael. But the real question is, what do you want to mean by it, and in what situation? You would have to be referring to a particular moment or point in time in the future. ...


8

How about this trick? This happens when? If the other person knows the event to be in the past, they should assume that you were using the historic present. If they know the event to be in the future, they will assume the simple present. Either way, you win.



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible