0

I recently came across this:

We are planning to go on holiday in mid-July, and we will need help with our two cats as well as with our garden and house for two weeks. Your job is (will be?) to invest three hours a day and doing all of the tasks mentioned below which also includes entertaining the two cats of ours.

Jobs that (will?) need doing every day are feeding the cats and cleaning their water dish and the cat toilet. Furthermore, the flowers and plants in the garden and inside the house (will?) need watering depending on how much it rains. The floors inside of the house (will?) need cleaning once a week, too.

The present tense sounds right to me but shouldn´t one use will?

  • I'd use 'Your job is to ...' speaking to a person who has already agreed to work at that time, but 'Your job will be to ...' in an advertisement of the post. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 25 '18 at 16:14
  • Could you explain why exactly, grammatically , or do you have a link? – Marcin Nowak Feb 25 '18 at 16:19
  • 1
    It's not so much a grammatical reason as a notional one. 'Your job is to ...' can be seen as shorthand for 'Your job specification is ...' (ie the specification already exists, justifying 'is'). 'Your job will be to ...' emphasises the fact that the job itself is in the future. Neither is incorrect. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 25 '18 at 16:23
  • I see. Therefore the second paragraph is part of the job specification (using is) although it starts with "jobs that need every doing...", right?. – Marcin Nowak Feb 25 '18 at 16:31
  • 1
    If the author had used will be without putting it in parens with a question mark, it would have carried the questionable and somewhat arrogant assumption that the reader was applying for the job. The question mark is intended to cancel that presumption, though I frankly don't think it works very well here -- maybe in person, with a winsome smile, but not in print with typography. – John Lawler Feb 25 '18 at 18:27
1

In a comment, Edwin Ashworth wrote:

It's not so much a grammatical reason as a notional one. 'Your job is to ...' can be seen as shorthand for 'Your job specification is ...' (ie the specification already exists, justifying 'is'). 'Your job will be to ...' emphasises the fact that the job itself is in the future. Neither is incorrect.

  • I talked to an expert (though he is a German), and he said there is a rule to not use a future tense if a quantifier introduces a sentence like "When, if or as". In his opinion "How much" introduces a dependent sentence!? What do you think? :) – Marcin Nowak Feb 26 '18 at 18:31
0

In a comment, John Lawler wrote:

If the author had used will be without putting it in parens with a question mark, it would have carried the questionable and somewhat arrogant assumption that the reader was applying for the job. The question mark is intended to cancel that presumption, though I frankly don't think it works very well here -- maybe in person, with a winsome smile, but not in print with typography.

  • This was to ask if "will" can be used here. I inserted it..... – Marcin Nowak Feb 25 '18 at 23:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.