2

I have written

It lacks exact references to the book, something about argumentative analysis I will have come to learn later in the course.

I wonder if this is correct and what this tense would be called.

Perhaps it would be called “future past future perfect”?

1

According to the Cambridge Dictionary it is future perfect simple, and is entirely acceptable.

The reason for this is that future perfect simple is constructed

will/shall + have + the -ed form of the verb

which corresponds to

[I] will have come [to learn]

1

I understand what you mean with the sentence but it took me some effort. My choice would be:

  • "It lacks exact references to the book, something about argumentative analysis I would come to learn later in the course."

This tense is called a conditional perfect and is described as "something that might have happened in the past but had not happened at that point".

0

This is just the fu­ture per­fect con­struc­tion, a valid grammatical construction in English. However, given the amount of context you have supplied (none), how you are trying to use it here is not what a native speaker would normally choose. You should use a much simpler construction, because except in exotic circumstances, we certainly would do so.

From Wi­ki­pe­dia:

In English, the fu­ture per­fect con­struc­tion con­sists of a fu­ture con­struc­tion such as the aux­il­iary verb will (or shall) or the go­ing-to fu­ture and the per­fect in­fini­tive of the main verb (which con­sists of the in­fini­tive of the aux­il­iary verb have and the past par­tici­ple of the main verb).

There is no spe­cial name, nor need there be, just be­cause you have rephrased will have learned into will have come to learn. The im­por­tant thing is that at face value it does not make sense to use this con­struc­tion here, be­cause the tem­po­ral mean­ing is not clear in your sen­tence:

It lacks ex­act ref­er­ences to the book, some­thing about ar­gu­men­ta­tive anal­y­sis I will have come to learn later in the course.

To see why, we must look at what that means. The con­struc­tion (to) come to + in­fini­tive has two re­lated uses per the OED’s sense 30 for come:

  • a. To be brought in the course of time or events to the ac­tion de­noted by the verb; to get to be, do, or have some­thing.

  • b. To reach (grad­u­ally or even­tu­ally) the point of un­der­stand­ing or know­ing some­thing; to grow to feel or think some­thing over time.

I pre­sume you are us­ing come to in the sense of “even­tu­ally”:

  • come to learn > even­tu­ally learn

or in the per­fect,

  • have come to learn > have even­tu­ally learned

So we can read your pro­posed sen­tence this way:

It lacks ex­act ref­er­ences to the book, some­thing about ar­gu­men­ta­tive anal­y­sis I will have even­tu­ally learned later in the course.

Your use of the per­fect as­pect does not quite fit here. This works a bit bet­ter:

It lacks ex­act ref­er­ences to the book, some­thing about ar­gu­men­ta­tive anal­y­sis I will even­tu­ally learn later in the course.

But that still doesn't sit to­gether quite right. You can fix this by adding when or once

It lacks ex­act ref­er­ences to the book, some­thing I will even­tu­ally learn about later in the course when we study ar­gu­men­ta­tive anal­y­sis.

If back­shifted for nar­ra­tion, once may read bet­ter than when does:

It lacked ex­act ref­er­ences to the book, some­thing I would even­tu­ally learn about later in the course once we stud­ied ar­gu­men­ta­tive anal­y­sis.

Some writ­ers might put that last verb in the per­fect as well:

It lacked ex­act ref­er­ences to the book, some­thing I would even­tu­ally learn about later in the course once we had stud­ied ar­gu­men­ta­tive anal­y­sis.

In casual speech you could also say:

It lacked ex­act ref­er­ences to the book, some­thing I’d even­tu­ally learn about later in the course once we got around to study­ing ar­gu­men­ta­tive anal­y­sis.

Just as to come to + in­fini­tive is a pe­riphrastic con­struc­tion that lacks any par­tic­u­lar name, so too does the to get around to + pro­gres­sive con­struc­tion sim­i­larly lack any spe­cial name. English has no end of such con­struc­tions, so it re­ally is not worth try­ing to in­vent dis­tinct ter­mi­nol­ogy nam­ing each of them.

Technical note on “tense”

This is a pe­riphrastic con­struc­tion built an­a­lyt­i­cally by chain­ing to­gether sep­a­rate words, not a mor­pho­log­i­cal in­flec­tion wherein a sin­gle word al­ters its form to in­di­cate the time, the way we see with present-tense get in­flect­ing to past tense got or with present-tense call in­flect­ing to past tense called.

So be­cause there re­ally aren’t any fi­nite verbs here, strictly speak­ing there is there­fore no “tense” in the tech­ni­cal way that word is nor­mally used in de­scrib­ing syn­thetic lan­guages.

(In other senses, will and would cor­re­spond to a pair of present and past forms for the same verb, but these are modals, not fi­nite verbs.)

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.