# Using simple present as future



## hamlet

When do you use the simple present as a future tense? Is the following phrase correct : 
A : "Bye I'm leaving now"
B : "When DO YOU COME back"
Or does it strictly have to be "when are you coming back"?


----------



## clairanne

hi

I would always ask " when are you coming back" or "when do you expect to be back"

Regards


----------



## LV4-26

I've never seen the simple present used with a future value. 
Conversely, as clairanne suggested, the present continuous often serves that purpose.

If you have a different experience,  hamlet, it would be interesting to share it with us. Did you hear that somewhere or were you just wondering?


----------



## hamlet

Well I do say "when does your plane leave?" so dunno but I'll stick to what clairanne said


----------



## clairanne

hi

Funny old language! I would say "when does your plane leave" but I think we say a lot of things that are not grammatically correct.  I would not write it though, I would always write "What time does your plane leave?"


----------



## hamlet

Sure but that's not the question here. It's about the tense and in the second form you said it's simple present too


----------



## Loob

"When does your plane leave?" = "when is your plane scheduled to leave?"; 
"when do you come back?" = "when are you scheduled to come back?"

Hope this helps!

Loob


----------



## Jane_zhang3

Is it correct to say 
" When will your plane leave?"
" When will you come back?" Or
" When will you be coming back?"


----------



## Outsider

hamlet said:


> When do you use the simple present as a future tense?


It does happen. For example:

When you come to London, you can stay at my house.



hamlet said:


> Is the following phrase correct :
> A : "Bye I'm leaving now"
> B : "When DO YOU COME back"
> Or does it strictly have to be "when are you coming back"?


You can say "When are you coming back?" or "When will you be back?" Never "When are you back?"



Jane_zhang3 said:


> Is it correct to say
> " When will your plane leave?"
> " When will you come back?" Or
> " When will you be coming back?"


All three are possible.


----------



## se16teddy

Loob said:


> "when do you come back?" = "when are you scheduled to come back?"


I agree.  In England, 'When d'you come back?' is perfectly common.


----------



## Loob

Outsider said:


> It does happen. For example:
> 
> When you come to London, you can stay at my house.
> 
> You can say "When are you coming back?" or "When will you be back?" Never "When are you back?"


 

Actually, "when are you back?" is possible too....

Loob


----------



## panjandrum

Here is a list of some possible questions.
1. When are you coming back? (When will you be coming back?)
2. When do you expect to be back?
3. When do you come back? (When will you come back?) 
4. When do you get back? (When will you get back?)
5. When are you back? (When will you be back?)
They are all reasonable questions in the right context


----------



## hamlet

Now question is: which fits in which context. Could anybody answer that one?


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

In colloquial speech here in New York, you certainly could use the present tense in the way noted, and no one would think it strange:

_I leave for France on Tuesday, and I return on Saturday afternoon.  I then take the six o'clock train to Boston - so it will be a long day._


----------



## Prower

*So, if I hear someone say*

*He retires next month.* (It means that he is supposed to be retired due to the labour law or something official = His retirement is scheduled for the next month.)

However,

*He is getting retired next month.* (It means that this is his desire to quite not the need to comply with the labour law.)

What do you think?


----------



## lucas-sp

But this is the wrong forum for this question. You want to ask about the difference between "to retire" and "to be retired." Otherwise there's no difference in meaning between the two sentences.

"To be retired" means "to be forced to retire, whether or not it's your desire to retire." "To retire" is neutral.


----------



## Prower

lucas-sp said:


> But this is the wrong forum for this question. You want to ask about the difference between "to retire" and "to be retired." Otherwise there's no difference in meaning between the two sentences.
> 
> "To be retired" means "to be forced to retire, whether or not it's your desire to retire." "To retire" is neutral.


Have you read the whole thread? I have come to a different conclusion about it. I don't want to ask about the difference between "to retire" and "to be retired."


----------



## lucas-sp

Maybe you want to then ask about the differences between:

He retires next month. and
He's retiring next month.

The way you phrased your question makes one active and the other passive; thus "to retire" versus "to be retired" is the biggest difference an English speaker notices between the two sentences.


----------



## Prower

Loob said:


> "When does your plane leave?" = "when is your plane scheduled to leave?";
> "when do you come back?" = "when are you scheduled to come back?"
> 
> Hope this helps!
> 
> Loob


As Loob says, Present Simple implies a scheduled or planned action for the future. But having read about it in other forums and sites I came to conclusion that it has an official aspect involved. 
If I say
I go to Italy next year. (It would mean that I am sopposed to go there because my boss wants it)
However,
I am going to Italy next year. (It would mean that I want to go there)

Does this difference exist?


----------



## lucas-sp

I don't buy that there's any difference in "We go to Portland on Wednesday" and "We're going to Portland on Wednesday." For instance, my mother would have no problem asking me "When do you two leave for Portland?" if it were a vacation or pleasure trip (she just did last week, in fact). There's no sense of "my boss is making me..." in that sentence.

Perhaps you're thinking of "I *have to go* to Italy next year"?


----------



## JulianStuart

Prower said:


> I go to Italy next year. (It wouldmight mean that I am supposed to go there because my boss wants it) (however, it might be someone consulting their diary to explain to someone why they can't do something in New Zealand next year)
> However,
> I am going to Italy next year. (It wouldmight mean that I want to go there) (Or that my boss told me to go and this is a neutral statement)
> 
> Does this difference exist?


No, unless the context provides some help (then it won't matter which form is used!


lucas-sp said:


> I don't buy that there's any difference in "We go to Portland on Wednesday" and "We're going to Portland on Wednesday." For instance, my mother would have no problem asking me "When do you two leave for Portland?" if it were a vacation or pleasure trip (she just did last week, in fact). There's no sense of "my boss is making me..." in that sentence.


I agree with Lucas (both from my BrE side or my AmE side  )


----------



## Prower

Well, I agree with everyone, however, I hear differnt opinions this is why I am looking for the "truth".

My statement didn't materialize out of the blue, but rather, quite the opposite. I have some explanations taken from different sites which I would like to let you see.

http://www.e-grammar.org/present-simple-continuous/

3. With a future time expression (soon, on Monday) it is used for definite arrangements in the near future. ​*The present continuous tense is more personal *​than the simple present tense, because it expresses ​*the speaker's plan​*.

​http://www.e-grammar.org/present-tense-be-going-to-future/

*Present simple, present continuous for future arrangements*

With time expressions (next Friday, soon) the present simple and continuous (progressive) are used for definite future arrangements and plans. The time must be mentioned, otherwise the sentence would not have a future meaning.I am watching TV tonight. (I will do it tonight, it is my plan.)The continuous is more informal. It is the most usual way of expressing our personal plans.I am leaving on Sunday. (I have decided to leave on Sunday, it is my plan.)But: I leave on Sunday. (*Someone else has decided it, it is someone's plan for me.*)The simple form is typically used in official statements and timetables.

*What do you think? *




​


----------



## lucas-sp

I think this is one of the oddest "rules" of English usage that I've come across in a long time!

Certainly in an absolutely formal context, like a timetable or a news announcement, the simple present would be employed:

The Titanic sails Thursday. The sales projections for next quarter go live in May.

But that's just because the present progressive is more wordy, expansive, and talky. A news-reader could just as easily say:

The world's largest emerald is coming to town this week for an exhibition of rare gemstones at the Natural History Museum.

This is a case of correlation being misinterpreted as a rule. Since people when discussing their own personal plans tend to be talkier, it might be true that the present progressive gets used more in those contexts. But there is absolutely no hard-and-fast distinction between "compulsion" and "individual desire" that corresponds to the distinction between "present simple" and "present progressive."


----------



## JulianStuart

I think I would use both forms freely ("I go to Italy next week" and "I am going to Italy next week") depending on the context and preceding conversation.  The choice, for me,  would *not* be influenced by whether someone else made the plans or scheduled the trip or whether I did it myself, or whether I "wanted" to go or not!  

There might be about +0.036% enthusiasm nuance in favour of the latter form and the former is definitely 0.23% more neutral-sounding, but it would easily be overwhelmed by any slight difference in tone and stress that could swing the meaning by at least 42.7%
Seriously, though, I think some of these guidances for English learners are way too definitive


----------



## JulianStuart

Noted the cross post with lucas-sp)

Lucas - I was hoping you would be a little more quantitative, like I was.  Very qualitative answer there!!!  (Other than that, we are in 99.753% agreement, well ±10%)


----------



## lucas-sp

JulianStuart said:


> Seriously, though, I think some of these guidances for English learners are way too definitive


Hear, hear. Also, this particular rule seems based in a very non-English structure to begin with. We English speakers express tone through modal auxiliaries, interjections, and intonation, and hardly ever through conjugation alone. 

Or maybe I should say we express tone only .003 percent through conjugations? Sorry, I'm more a man of qualities than quantities...


----------



## Prower

lucas-sp, don't take my question as an attempt to denounce your authority as a person who knows a lot about English. Does you education has something to do with linguistics? 

I just want to understand why this rule wasn't presented to you when you were studying in the University. I think that you would agree that there are two significant points of view on English. The first one belongs to laypeople and the second one to scientists. And these views may differ drastically. I respect either of them. As it feels like this rule is known only in the academic circles while ordinary people, in respect to English, are not aware of it. Can it be the case?


----------



## Prower

Well, I see what you are saying. However, there might be some logic in that strange rule. Here it is another site

http://www.englishtenseswithcartoons.com/tenses/present_simple

It says 

*USE 6: Future Arrangements*
Use the Present Simple to talk about events *that we can't change *(for example, an *official meeting* or a train departure).

Probably it's not so groundless after all.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

It's right, Prower.  Go ahead and use it.

It's not saying that is the only way of describing events which we can't change, is it?  You seem to expect the complexity of expression of native speakers to be completely reflected in advice to beginners.


----------



## JulianStuart

Prower said:


> l
> I just want to understand why this rule wasn't presented to you when you were studying in the University. I think that you would agree that there are two significant points of view on English. The first one belongs to laypeople and the second one to scientists. And these views may differ drastically. I respect either of them. As it feels like this rule is known only in the academic circles while ordinary people, in respect to English, are not aware of it. Can it be the case?



Yes it definitively IS the case.

The people speak the language.  The "scientists" continually try to figure out the underlying "rules" that the people use without knowing/caring/formulating/analysing.   It is not the other way round.  In fact, it is a necessary consequence that the scientists come up with these analyses only after they have  studied the language and its usage.  They are therefore "behind".  Sometimes, the "scientists' come up with rules that don't really work - one might be temped to say they believe too much in the definitiveness of their pronouncements.  If this rule is only known in the academic circles that tells you a lot, does it not?  What use is it to "ordinary people" and people learning to speak the language the way the people speak it, not the way the scientists think they (should) speak it.  I am not a "language scientist" nor was I taught all these "rules" when I was at school, the way people are taught whose native language is not English.  (It may be regarded as one of the benefits of being a native speaker).

I have no problem with teachers to foreign students passing along the notion that there may be this nuance intended when one tense is selected over another, but to elevate it to the level of a "rule" that many native speakers have not heard of is not helpful, in my opinion!

Not picking on you, Prower - just sometimes the frustration of some of these things that are taught as "definitive" when they are no such thing, causes the fingers to whir across the keyboard.


----------



## lucas-sp

I have graduate degrees in Rhetoric, which is definitely not Linguistics - because in Rhetoric we assume that there are a thousand guidelines (not rules) governing how something could possibly be expressed, and we wonder how _best_ or _most successfully _a given intention could be expressed in language. I do write, read, and speak a hell of a lot of English, though, so I assume that I (as a reasonably-competent native speaker) would have some familiarity with this nuance, _if it existed in everyday or even high-level English expression_.

Also, obviously, most English native speakers don't take English language courses in university. We take classes on writing, reading, and style, but not grammar (for the most part).

There are definitely linguists around here, though, and maybe one of them would be able to point us to a scientific paper about the difference between compulsion and freedom as expressed in the difference between non-continuous and continuous forms. I'm not familiar with the website you linked to, but it doesn't have any citations either to whatever linguistic study or style book it found this "rule" in. As such, it seems like a rule imported from another language into English, or noticed by a non-native who would be more likely to think about what verbal aspects expressed certain tonal nuances. As I said before, we don't normally inflect our conjugations with such nuances.

I do agree with the link between present simple and events not likely to change, however. But this is because when we discuss future events, we _normally_ talk about them as not likely to change. We have to add inflections if we want to express that we find them improbable or malleable ("I'm probably going to Singapore to give a lecture next month"). But also:

"The trial begins on November 15, but I'm going to try and file an injunction to have it pushed back."
"I leave for Portland on Wednesday, but not if my cat dies in the next few days. Then I'll cancel the trip."

Clearly the present simple doesn't mean that future events are unchangeable. It just means that they're more likely to occur, neutrally, as presented in the sentence.

Also notice that this second "rule" about the present simple is not at all the same as the first one. It doesn't have anything to do with compulsion/necessity or individual choice, just about the probability of something happening. As such, the existence of both "rules" doesn't really add up to a corroboration.


----------



## lucas-sp

As a response to Julian: I just want to point out, again, that we have no evidence that scientists or linguists even claim that this is a rule. We just have one website that doesn't have a clear source or author.


----------



## JulianStuart

lucas-sp said:


> As a response to Julian: I just want to point out, again, that we have no evidence that scientists or linguists even claim that this is a rule. We just have one website that doesn't have a clear source or author.



I tried to put "scientists" in quotes each time (and in response to Prower's use of the term) , but you are right, my frustration was directed at the "teachers", often not native speakers, who formulate and propagate such "rules" with abandon!  I can't think of other such "rules" off the top of my head but there is sadly a common complaint on these boards about the quality of some of the tests set by such teachers.


----------



## Prower

*JulianStuart*

 and *lucas-sp* may I express my adoration and appreciation to you for your really good answers.
*Thomas Tompion, nice to hear from you. Somehow, I get the feeling you are egging me on.))))*


----------



## lucas-sp

I asked around a bit yesterday, seeing what people thought about the difference between the two sentences:

1. He retires next year. and
2. He's retiring next year.

Both these sentences are a bit vague. Between them, people thought that 1. was more definite - i.e. that it felt like his retirement had already been scheduled (but there was no specific sense of whether or not _he himself_ had chosen to retire). 2. apparently felt like it was still in the process of being worked out; he was still thinking about when and how to retire best.

This changed when we looked at sentences like:

3. He retires in March. and
4. He's retiring in March.

In both of these cases, the nearness of "March" to the present didn't leave a lot of room for open-endedness. It was understood that the retirement was a definite, scheduled event from both sentences. No difference in meaning was felt here, unlike with "next year" when the wide time-frame seemed to allow for more changeability and uncertainty.

So there's my cheap and dirty scientific survey - as I was surprised to find out, the present progressive is understood to be a bit more unsettled than the present, but only in contexts where a change is conceivable.

I also thought about one situation where, in AE, there are in fact differences between the present present and the present - the use of the verb "to go." Between "I'm going to New York in the fall" and "I go to New York in the fall," I can detect some of the nuances that Prower was talking about - the later sentence does in fact feel like it would be used for business and already-scheduled events, but the first one has more of the feel of vacation or visiting relatives.


----------



## se16teddy

I think lucas's contribution is very useful, and has come closer to finding a solution than anything I have seen before, especially in his contacts' response to his second example.  I would perhaps use the word _remote _in place of lucas's _open-ended _or (less) _definite_. I am perfectly happy with _he retires in June 2016_, but uncomfortable with _he retires tomorrow_. 

There is also a stylistic element to the difference between present continuous and simple present with reference to the future.  _We are attacking tomorrow_ is suitable for the barrack room, but _We attack tomorrow_ is more appropriate for the stage.


----------



## anglomania1

Hi there, 
interesting thread!!
I have to say that I'd definitely use "I'm going to Italy next month", but I would never say "I go to Italy next month". Saying that, I have heard it and I can hear it in my mind  - with an American accent, though. 
So maybe it's used in AE.

As for present simple and continuous for the future:
Present continuous - I'd use this for appointments, something I'm doing that has already been organised and I have a time, date, place etc.
Present simple - I''d use this for timetables, scheduled/organised events.

To simplify things for my students, I advise them to use the present continuous when the subject is a person, and present simple when the subject is a thing (it's probably not the most grammatically correct explanation but it helps!!):
*I*'m leaving tomorrow
*The plane *leaves at 6 tomorrow
or
*He*'s starting a new course next month.
*The new course* starts next month

Also:
*the film* starts at 8.30
*the concert *ends at midnight

As happens with language, we get used to hearing these forms and use them when we feel like !! Also, like in the sentence above (in se16teddy's post), maybe "we attack tomorrow" uses the present simple because it's a scheduled military attack (we= the army) and not a personal appointment to meet a friend, for example, where I'd use present cont. 
Maybe it depends on whether I organise something or whether it's a more "official" thing being organised by someone else - a schedule (I think someone might already have said this above).


I hope this helps, 
Anglo


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm surprised Anglomania.

Suppose you habitually go to Italy in March; you have a house there and it's a habit going back twenty years. Couldn't you say in February one year,_ I go to Italy next month_? I know I could. _I'm going to Italy_ _next month_ would suggest that this was an occasional visit, not an ingrained habit, or that the person you were talking to didn't know you, and/or you didn't wish to reveal too many of your habits.

In the next sentence you say you use the present simple for timetables, scheduled/organised events - yet you would never say_ I go to Italy next month_. Couldn't going to Italy next month be a scheduled event? I must have misunderstood you.


----------



## anglomania1

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm surprised Anglomania.
> 
> Suppose you habitually go to Italy in March; you have a house there and it's a habit going back twenty years. Couldn't you say in February one year,_ I go to Italy next month_? I know I could. _I'm going to Italy_ next month would suggest that this was an occasional visit, not an ingrained habit, or that the person you were talking to didn't know you, and/or you didn't wish to reveal too many of your habits.
> 
> In the next sentence you say you use the present simple for timetables, scheduled/organised events - yet you would never say_ I go to Italy next month_. Couldn't going to Italy next month be a scheduled event? I must have misunderstood you.



Hi there, 
interesting comment. I think you have to admit that without your explanation of a particular situation you wouldn't use the present simple in these cases.
I'm going to Italy next month - sounds like a one-off trip or a holiday.
I go to Italy next month, yes, it does sound like a scheduled event, but I think it would have to be in context and you'd have to explain that you go every March or it would sound just a bit odd to me .
If I don't know you go every March, I'd probably expect you to say "I'm going".
I think you're right and my explanation of using present simple for things and present continuous for people is far too generalised, but it doesn't claim to be a definitive rule - just to help out students finding it hard to get their head round it!
The idea was that if they stick to this as a general rule they probably won't make too many mistakes.
Perhaps when I said "I'd never say I go to Italy next month" - the use of "never" was a bit too strong!! Though I must say that I wouldn't use it UNLESS it was a scheduled event.
I think we would generally "prefer" the present continuous with a person as the subject, though that doesn't exclude the use of the simple, of course, in certain situations.
In my previous post I was just trying to find a GENERAL difference - but of course there is always an exception or an unusual use as in your example.

Maybe it's better to say that the present continuous is for a one-off future organised appointment whereas the simple is a scheduled and often habitual event? 
What do you think? 
Anglo


----------



## Pertinax

Lucas has looked at the same event - retirement - over two different timeframes, and Teddy has added a third, very short-term timeframe.  I think that's a very helpful way to study the distinction.

The present simple - or tenseless present - is the tense that we use for scientific truths.  It's as if we're contemplating a frozen four-dimensional universe from outside.  We use the present because past and future have been reduced to spatial markers.

Describing an event using the tenseless present therefore gives it almost the status of a scientific truth.  It's not open for debate: the date and time are settled.  It's as predictable as the next eclipse, or as regular as the rising and setting of the sun.

I think that is why Anglomania associates it more with events than people, since events are less whimsical and more predictable.

The three timeframes for retirement are:
_1. He retires next year.
2. He retires in March.
3. *He retires tomorrow.
_
Like Teddy, I wouldn't say (3).  I think what has happened is that it lacks the precision necessary for a scientific truth.  Statement (1) has a margin for error of say 10%, for (2) it's more like 30%, and for (3) perhaps 100%. But I think it can be salvaged by increasing the precision as we reduce the timeframe:
_1. He retires next year.
2. He retires on March 17.
3. He officially retires tomorrow at 4pm.
_
Turning now to the present continuous, it's been suggested that the tense can be justified because the event in a sense begins with a present act of will, and it is that act of will or intention that sustains the present continuous. In the case of retirement, we can readily say:
_He's retiring next year.
He's retiring in March.
He's retiring tomorrow._
.... but the meaning changes somewhere between next year and March.  As Lucas points out, the options are running out, the possibility of rescheduling the event is receding - retirement is too big a thing to cancel at short notice. Consequently the meaning of the present continuous gets closer to that of the tenseless present as the event looms ever nearer.

Does the same logic apply to less momentous events?
Huddleston & Pullum give this example:
_a. I see my broker today.
b. I'm seeing my broker today.
(a) conveys that an appointment has been set up or is regularly scheduled
(b) may suggest simply that I intend to go and see my broker today._

I think, as with retirement, these draw closer together in meaning as we reduce the timeframe:
_a. I see my broker in just under an hour.
b. I'm seeing my broker in just under an hour.
_
... until on the brink of the appointment the tenseless present starts to sound a little awry:
_a. *I see my broker any minute now.
b. I'm seeing my broker any minute now._
... unless again we ratchet up the precision:
_I see my broker at 1pm sharp.  That's in less than 3 minutes. I can't talk now, I'm sorry._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I just can't agree that _he retires tomorrow_ is in the least unusual or unidiomatic.

Take this passage from Jane Austen.

_ "I am so glad to see you!" said she, seating herself between Elinor and Marianne, "for it is so bad a day I was afraid you might not come, which would be a shocking thing, as we go away again to-morrow._  Chapter 20, Sense and Sensibility (it's about the third line in the chapter, in case you want to have further context).

_We go away again tomorrow_ seems to me a very similar form, and, again, entirely idiomatic.  I find it bizarre to suggest that to write _We are going away again tomorrow_ would be more correct, usual, or idiomatic.


----------



## JulianStuart

I think the last few posts, well-reasoned and peppered with examples where the "rule" is illustrated and counterexamples where context and other factors show it does not apply, strengthen the suggestion that the rule should be taught as a "common practice" or be provided as a guidance rather than a black and white or right/wrong proposition.  The nuance values are clearly higher than the whimsical numbers I presented above and the "firmness of the plan" seems to be a significant influence (have tickets been purchased or the date simply entered in pencil on a calendar for next week/month/year?).


----------



## anglomania1

Thomas Tompion said:


> I just can't agree that _he retires tomorrow_ is in the least unusual or unidiomatic.
> 
> Take this passage from Jane Austen.
> 
> _ "I am so glad to see you!" said she, seating herself between Elinor and Marianne, "for it is so bad a day I was afraid you might not come, which would be a shocking thing, as we go away again to-morrow._  Chapter 20, Sense and Sensibility (it's about the third line in the chapter, in case you want to have further context).
> 
> _We go away again tomorrow_ seems to me a very similar form, and, again, entirely idiomatic.  I find it bizarre to suggest that to write _We are going away again tomorrow_ would be more correct, usual, or idiomatic.


Hi there, 
I love Jane Austen, but I hardly think she can be quoted as an example of modern usage.
She also uses the verb to be in the present perfect: He is come, he is come!!! (to JAne Bennet when Bingley is riding up the drive!!)

Anglo


----------



## lucas-sp

Maybe the problem with "he retires tomorrow" is that "retiring" as a process is expected to take longer than one day. We could obviously say "He has his retirement party tomorrow" or "He leaves tomorrow." This is why "The lawsuit is tomorrow" sounds odder than "The lawsuit begins tomorrow" - a lawsuit is normally expected to go on for more than one day as well.

On another note, we can say "Macduff _dies tonight_" (or whoever). That seems pretty darn idiomatic. This is, of course, because you _couldn't_ say "Macduff is dying tonight" - that would mean that, right now, this evening, Macduff is lying in a hospital somewhere, and not that "We are going to kill Macduff tonight" / "We finally kill Macduff tonight."

The example with "die" shows that there are more considerations than just probability/remoteness. There are also verbs that change meaning based on their aspect. So there's such an overwhelming set of overlapping factors deciding what verb form to use.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Prower said:


> I just want to understand why this rule wasn't presented to you when you were studying in the University.


The so-called "rule" wasn't presented because it doesn't exist: there is no such "rule" in English. All you have read is the opinion of one person writing about grammar, and the unusual, idiosyncratic, and highly debatable opinion of one single person does not create a "rule" that all educated people should be expected to follow.  All that one can say with accuracy on this matter is that certain forms are more common in certain circumstances than others -- but that does not make a "rule" regarding which form to choose in any given circumstance.


----------



## lucas-sp

I have another idea. It's my impression that in English we very often try to talk _as much as possible_ in an informal context, so as to keep a constant stream of language flowing between speakers - it's a sign of intimacy and makes the interlocutor feel more at ease. Perhaps the present continuous is favored in informal conversations _because _it's up to two syllables longer than the present non-continuous?

This is another example of how I suspect that, even if there is a correlation between formality and the present non-continuous, that correlation may be a side-effect of something else, and not the root phenomenon.


----------



## Pertinax

I've noticed before that there are many borderline cases where people disagree on the use of the futurate.

Dowty 1979 (Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, p156-157) has some interesting examples, some of which I might paraphrase here.

We can say of a prisoner being executed either:
_He dies tomorrow.
He is dying tomorrow.
He's dying tomorrow, though the president may grant him a pardon._

But not:
_*He dies tomorrow, though the president may grant him a pardon._
... since the qualification denies it the required degree of certainty.

Again we can say:
_I leave on Thursday at 4pm._
but probably not:
_*I tentatively leave on Thursday at 4pm._
... though the present continuous can be used in both cases.

On the other hand, comparing:
_The sun sets tomorrow at 6:57pm.
*The sun is setting tomorrow at 6:57pm._
... the continuous form is "somewhat strange".  That might be because it's not subject to any act of will or intention by any human or animal agency.


----------



## wandle

On the subject of rules, for what it is worth, here are two rules derived from personal reading and observation:
(1) The simple form includes the meaning of the continuous form. 
This is because the continuous is not a different tense, but simply a periphrastic alternative, used to emphasise one aspect of the tense. 
Thus, the full meaning of 'I am going' is already included in 'I go' (but not _vice versa_). Hence I would disagree with _Pertinax_ regarding _*He dies tomorrow, though the president may grant him a pardon._ To put it another way, the continuous can always be replaced by the simple if so desired (but again, not _vice versa_).
(2) The future tense cannot be incorrect in referring to the future, though it may be unidiomatic. Among many literary examples, Shakespeare says (Sonnet 2) 'When forty winters shall besiege thy brow'. This use of the future is strictly correct, whereas the use of the present tense instead is simply an idiom, though admittedly very common. 
The strict future is regularly used in legal documents, where the sense has to be made explicit. This Google search yields (it seems) 28m hits:
http://www.google.com/search?q="if+...ivns&ei=U7UgT7q6Ao-a8gOIsanEBw&start=180&sa=N


----------



## lucas-sp

Slight question: is "shall X" simply a future tense in expressions like "if either party shall"? Doesn't it instead denote future contingency?


----------



## wandle

There is a sense in which every use of the future tense involves contingency, because the future is never certain. But in this case, surely it is 'if' which introduces the essential contingency.


----------



## Pertinax

wandle said:


> This use of the future is strictly correct, whereas the use of the present tense instead is simply an idiom, though admittedly very common.



English does not have a future tense.  And the so-called "present" tense has many functions, including the marking of future time in the "futurate" construction.  It is just as _correct_ as the use of a modal auxiliary.

You might as well say that the use of the preterite "said" in contexts such as:
_If he said that to me, I'd slap him._
is "strictly" incorrect, because it uses the "past" tense for a speculative future action.

The terms "present tense" and "past tense" refer to their typical use, not to their legitimate wide range of uses.

From _A Student's Introduction to English Grammar_ (Huddleston & Pullum), p56:
_There are some languages that have a three-term tense system contrasting past, present and future. Contrary to what is traditionally assumed, English is not one of them: it has no future tense. It does have several ways of talking about future time, and the most basic one does involve the auxiliary "will". Nonetheless, "will" belongs grammatically and semantically with the auxiliaries that mark mood rather than with the various markers of tense._


----------



## lucas-sp

Thanks, Pert. My sense was that "shall" gave a different mood than "will."

I think this entire discussion would do well to re-organize a bit in light of Pertinax's comment. It seems to me that we really ought to discuss the particular qualities of the "moods" attaching to all the different ways of referring to future actions (including, obviously, the mood of the present and the present continuous).


----------



## wandle

Two quotations:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-968X.1963.tb01000.x/abstract
"In modern Germanic languages the future tense is usually formed with the help of modal verbs." 
Examples given include English and other languages.
Clearly in this author's view there is such a thing as an English future tense.

http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~anoop/papers/pdf/pwpl-final.pdf
"In this paper, we began with the following question: Is will part of the tense system or the modal system or is it simply homonymous? After reviewing several arguments presented for and against the two sides of this question, we were lead to the conclusion that the question was ill-posed since neither alternative alone could account for the empirical facts. Any semantics for will must account for a simultaneous contribution from the modal as well as the tense system. Note that this is distinct from stating that will is ambiguous between a modal and a future tense."
This author (spelling, punctuation and arithmetic notwithstanding) has concluded from empirical study that 'will' performs a genuine future function, among others.


----------



## wandle

> If he said that to me, I'd slap him.


 In such cases the verb in the protasis, though using the same form as the past indicative, should I believe be properly seen as a subjunctive: modal, not temporal.
It corresponds to 'If he were to say', not 'If he was to say'.


----------



## RafaelX

JulianStuart said:


> I think I would use both forms freely ("I go to Italy next week" and "I am going to Italy next week") depending on the context and preceding conversation.  The choice, for me,  would *not* be influenced by whether someone else made the plans or scheduled the trip or whether I did it myself, or whether I "wanted" to go or not!
> 
> There might be about +0.036% enthusiasm nuance in favour of the latter form and the former is definitely 0.23% more neutral-sounding, but it would easily be overwhelmed by any slight difference in tone and stress that could swing the meaning by at least 42.7%
> Seriously, though, I think some of these guidances for English learners are way too definitive



Unfortunately, it is too true - they often are. :/ And that's why your help is invaluable! Btw. one of the funniest replies I've read here so far, Julian Stuart.  You sure know one or two things about a good comedy! 



JulianStuart said:


> Noted the cross post with lucas-sp)
> 
> Lucas - I was hoping you would be a little more quantitative, like I was. Very qualitative answer there!!! (Other than that, we are in 99.753% agreement, well ±10%)



LOL


----------

