# future simple/continuous - will pick you up / will be picking you up



## Guiriman

Hi there. I have never really given it much thought before but it recently occurred to me that sometimes the future simple and future continuous may be completely interchangeable (for instance, "..., since I will go to university next year." and "..., since I will be going to university next year."). Another example that comes to mind is "John will pick you up at the airport" and "John will be picking you up at the airport". The problem lies in that these 2 sentences in future continuous would not sound right in Spanish if we were to use the Spanish future continuous, hence "..., since I will [go / be going] to university next year" would both be translated as "..., ya que el año que viene iré a la universidad" and "John will [pick / be picking] you up at the airport" both as "John te recogerá al aeropuerto". 

What I would like to know is whether there's any difference in meaning between the future simple and continuous structures for the 2 examples above as I might want to point this out to a Spanish person I'm currently teaching English. Thanks.


----------



## SevenDays

For starters, *will* is not a _future tense_, though it is one of the ways in which English refers to the future. In other words, "will" is not a tense-forming _morpheme_, like the past *-ed* or the present *-s*. "Will" belongs to the category of _modal verbs_, and as such marks *modality*, which is an expression of _likelihood_. In your sentences, the future is marked by "next year," and "will" expresses *certainty*. If we wanted to express _less certainty_, we switch to other modals verbs (_I *might* go to university_; _I *could* go to university_), where the future is still marked by "next year." The difference in the two sentences has to do with *aspect*: a description of the duration of the activity denoted by the verb. In I_ will be going to university next year_, "be going" marks *progressive aspect*; the verb action is presented as _ongoing_, with _duration_. In _I will go to university next year_, the verb is presented in its abstract, infinitive form, with _no duration_. Aspect focuses strictly on the verb; whatever the difference in aspect does not change the overall meaning of both sentences. There is, however, a stylistic difference: while "I will go to university" is objective (stating what is a matter of fact), "be going" is objective _with a touch of intentionality_: this form _underscores_ the intention of attending university next year. "I will be going to university," is, therefore, _more expressive_.
Cheers


----------



## k-in-sc

Yes, "I will go" sounds flatly declarative, while "I will be going" means something like "the plan is for me to go."


----------



## Guiriman

Hold your horses buddy...I didn't write the post to be lectured about unnecessary things which aren't even related to my enquiry...as if I didn't know that *will* is a *modal verb*. Also, I don't think there's any mention whatsoever of a "_future tense_" in my post: all I said was "_future simple and continuous *structures*_" (and I wasn't the one who invented the labels '_future simple_' and '_future continuous_', in case you didn't know...). Nevertherless, if I wanted to think of those 2 structures as '_verb tenses_', who are you to tell me otherwise? As a matter of fact, I also consider the structures [subject + would + base form] and [subject + would have + past participle] to be "_verb tenses_" simply because they both correspond to official tenses in Spanish (which is also true for future simple and future continuous). Honestly, while I'm not a professional teacher of English, I've been fluent in the language for 20 years now so I honestly don't need to be explained about modals and stuff. 

P.D. The other reply to my post is exactly the kind of answer I was looking for...they state that they're a native English speaker (unlike me AND YOU) and yet, they seem to be waaaay more humble than you.


----------



## loudspeaker

Guiriman said:


> Hold your horses buddy...I didn't write the post to be lectured about unnecessary things which aren't even related to my enquiry...as if I didn't know that *will* is a *modal verb*. Also, I don't think there's any mention whatsoever of a "_future tense_" in my post: all I said was "_future simple and continuous *structures*_" (and I wasn't the one who invented the labels '_future simple_' and '_future continuous_', in case you didn't know...). Nevertherless, if I wanted to think of those 2 structures as '_verb tenses_', who are you to tell me otherwise? As a matter of fact, I also consider the structures [subject + would + base form] and [subject + would have + past participle] to be "_verb tenses_" simply because they both correspond to official tenses in Spanish (which is also true for future simple and future continuous). Honestly, while I'm not a professional teacher of English, I've been fluent in the language for 20 years now so I honestly don't need to be explained about modals and stuff.
> 
> P.D. The other reply to my post is exactly the kind of answer I was looking for...they state that they're a native English speaker (unlike me AND YOU) and yet, they seem to be waaaay more humble than you.



Tu mensaje es una auténtica  grosería dirigido a alguien (sevendays) con grandes conocimientos tanto de la lengua inglesa como de la española,  que ha tratado amablemente de ayudarte y sin faltarte al respeto en ningún momento. Le debes una disculpa.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

I agree with loud.
Also, the mere fact that "One has been fluent in the language for 20 years" doesn't necessarily mean their fluent language is also flawless. I know people who speak all the time and also make mistakes all the time.

Anyway, the criterion based on the equation "progressive aspect = ongoing action" is not always trustworthy. When your pilot announces "We shall be landing at Gatwick airport in ten minutes from now", I seriously doubt he's thinking of the duration of his landing manoeuvres.

The difference between "I'll go to university next year" and  "I'll be going to university next year" is that the former is about a FACT, while the latter is about ME.
But I'm afraid this will be a little too cryptic for you. It's a long story, and what goes by the name of "Enunciative Grammar" could inspire you tremendously.
I'm at your disposal if you need the names of _Spanish_ and _French_ teachers of _English_ who have devoted their research to this extraordinary language, shedding light on innumerable phenomena which, without their studies, would have remained either inexplicable or been relegated to the area of exceptions. 

GS


----------



## Guiriman

loudspeaker said:


> Tu mensaje es una auténtica  grosería dirigido a alguien (sevendays) con grandes conocimientos tanto de la lengua inglesa como de la española,  que ha tratado amablemente de ayudarte y sin faltarte al respeto en ningún momento. Le debes una disculpa.



Bueno, quizás haya tratado amablemente de ayudarme pero creo que mi mensaje inicial tampoco invitaba a esas aclaraciones que me ha hecho al principio de su mensaje y lo más importante, tampoco eran necesarias. Cuando escribí el mensaje, yo solo pedía que alguien me respondiese a mi duda, no que demostrase sus grandes conocimientos de la lengua en cuestion corrigiendome sobre cosas que están totalmente fuera de lugar y que ni siquiera había afirmado yo en mi mensaje.

Asi que no, no voy a disculparme ya que sencillamente no tengo porqué. 

P.D. He visto algunos de tus mensajes en otros hilos y sinceramente no creo que seas la persona más indicada para echar en cara lo groseros que podemos ser los demás. Por favor, antes de señalar a otros, mirate a tí misma un poquito hija.


----------



## loudspeaker

Guiriman said:


> Bueno, quizás haya tratado amablemente de ayudarme pero creo que mi mensaje inicial tampoco invitaba a esas aclaraciones que me ha hecho al principio de su mensaje y lo más importante, tampoco eran necesarias. Cuando escribí el mensaje, yo solo pedía que alguien me respondiese a mi duda, no que demostrase sus grandes conocimientos de la lengua en cuestion corrigiendome sobre cosas que están totalmente fuera de lugar y que ni siquiera había afirmado yo en mi mensaje.
> 
> Asi que no, no voy a disculparme ya que sencillamente no tengo porqué.
> 
> P.D. He visto algunos de tus mensajes en otros hilos y sinceramente no creo que seas la persona más indicada para echar en cara lo groseros que podemos ser los demás. Por favor, antes de señalar a otros, mirate a tí misma un poquito hija.




Has visto algunos de mis mensajes y habrás notado que no me corto un pelo cuando se trata de lidiar con groseros; afortunadamente no son muchos los que pululan por Wordreference. 
Uno de lo mensajes que habrás leído es en respuesta a otra persona que, como tú, ha sido grosera, precisamente esta misma mañana. Ya es casualidad. Lo que pasa es que yo no me callo y miro para otro lado. 
El que te disculpes o no a mí me da exactamente lo mismo. 
Lo único que te digo es que con ese tono chulesco que transmites en tus mensajes no creo que llegues muy lejos en este foro.


----------



## Guiriman

Al menos no voy de sobrado como tu, que te crees que te vas a comer el mundo. Además, si ves mi actividad en el foro, veras que yo, o bien empiezo hilos, o bien respondo a personas que me escriben en ellos, pero a diferencia de tí, no me meto en los hilos de los demás a juzgar y a dar lecciones de comportamiento a la peña.


----------



## k-in-sc

Posts on the forum are intended to help anyone who may have the same question, not just the original poster. 
Rudeness and competitiveness are not welcome here.
We are all grateful to SevenDays for sharing his(?) impressive knowledge, which happens to be much greater than nearly all native speakers', including mine.


----------



## Guiriman

Well, I want to thank everybody (3 people so far) for having answered my query.


----------



## SevenDays

Guiriman said:


> Hold your horses buddy...I didn't write the post to be lectured about unnecessary things which aren't even related to my enquiry...as if I didn't know that *will* is a *modal verb*. Also, I don't think there's any mention whatsoever of a "_future tense_" in my post: all I said was "_future simple and continuous *structures*_" (and I wasn't the one who invented the labels '_future simple_' and '_future continuous_', in case you didn't know...). Nevertherless, if I wanted to think of those 2 structures as '_verb tenses_', who are you to tell me otherwise? As a matter of fact, I also consider the structures [subject + would + base form] and [subject + would have + past participle] to be "_verb tenses_" simply because they both correspond to official tenses in Spanish (which is also true for future simple and future continuous). Honestly, while I'm not a professional teacher of English, I've been fluent in the language for 20 years now so I honestly don't need to be explained about modals and stuff.
> 
> P.D. The other reply to my post is exactly the kind of answer I was looking for...they state that they're a native English speaker (unlike me AND YOU) and yet, they seem to be waaaay more humble than you.



WordReference isn't just _un foro de consultas_. More than that, WR is a _dictionary_, and as such, a source of information. My response wasn't meant to lecture. In getting to the answer (_syntactically_, a difference in aspect; _semantically_, a difference in expresiveness), I thought it best to say something about the future, _to inform_, _to provide context (_given that we are, after all, in a grammar forum) so that the reply can be useful to anyone who ends up here while looking up "future simple" o "future continuous." And if my response elicits substantive comments and criticisms (and not just tantrums) as to the nature of "progressive aspect" or "future tense" then all the better; we'd be providing more information, which can only be helpful. Far from being here _para demostrar grandes conocimientos_, my real purpose is to learn, as I do, from WR's wonderful foreros, certainly including k-in-sc and loudspeaker, who provide valuable insights not just about English but Spanish as well. But getting back on track, as with any dictionary, you take what you find useful and ignore what isn't.


----------



## Guiriman

Well, your reply was pretty thorough, which I appreciate. By the way, I made a small mistake when I replied to you (QUOTE: "As a matter of fact, I also consider the structures [subject + would +  base form] and [subject + would have + past participle] to be "_verb tenses_" simply because they both correspond to official tenses in Spanish (which is also true for future simple and future continuous"). What I meant to say was "future simple and future perfect", since the Spanish future continuous is not an 'official' verb tense. I'm surprised nobody pointed this out.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Guiriman said:


> Well, your reply was pretty thorough, which I appreciate. By the way, I made a small mistake when I replied to you (QUOTE: "As a matter of fact, I also consider the structures [subject + would + base form] and [subject + would have + past participle] to be "_verb tenses_" simply because they both correspond to official tenses in Spanish (which is also true for future simple and future continuous"). What I meant to say was "future simple and future perfect", since the Spanish future continuous is not an 'official' verb tense. I'm surprised nobody pointed this out.


Good observation. But also - despite SevenDays impressive explanation - it's not accurate to say that "will" is only a modal verb. English does indeed have a future tense and 'Will + infinitive' is indeed a morpheme to express it. 

Also I've noted in my study of Spanish for over a decade now that tense designation is a little more cut and dried in Spanish than sometimes in English.

I have also found that people are often more studied in the their 2nd language than their native language. I've been told I know way more about Spanish (my 2nd language) than most natives do, in terms of the pure grammar and conventions. SevenDays clearly is an expert student of English. But there's book knowledge and then there's practical knowledge. To any English speaking native - "will" forms the future tense just like "-ed" forms the simple past tense. "Will" is not considered modal when used to form future statements; at least not in any high school or college level grammar course you take in native English speaking countries.


----------



## SevenDays

But _I will go to university next year_ and _I will be going to university next year_ are perfect examples to show that "will" marks _modality_ and not future time. After all, if I pull out "will" and insert "might" (_I might be going to university next year_) the sentence still refers to the future, but I doubt high school or college level grammar books would say that "might" here forms the future tense. "Might" does exactly what "will" does: it says something about the speaker's assessment of the situation, where "will" suggests certainty and "might" possibility. English has no future tense, but it does have various ways of placing a statement in the future, but that doesn't mean "will" or "might" form the future tense; what places our statement in the future is the adverbial "next year."
Cheers


----------



## NewdestinyX

SevenDays said:


> But _I will go to university next year_ and _I will be going to university next year_ are perfect examples to show that "will" marks _modality_ and not future time. After all, if I pull out "will" and insert "might" (_I might be going to university next year_) the sentence still refers to the future, but I doubt high school or college level grammar books would say that "might" here forms the future tense. "Might" does exactly what "will" does: it says something about the speaker's assessment of the situation, where "will" suggests certainty and "might" possibility. English has no future tense, but it does have various ways of placing a statement in the future, but that doesn't mean "will" or "might" form the future tense; what places our statement in the future is the adverbial "next year."
> Cheers


Sorry, SevenDays.. We'll just have to agree to disagree with your assessment. I would ask you to consult Oxford's English Grammar resource. There are many times English doesn't use an adverbial to tell us the future element. All we need is will. Will, when used as a modal transmits certainty as you've suggested. But Will + infinitive, alone, with no adverbial, transmit English future tense as a morpheme. "Will" has a dual role in English. At least it does in Modern English.

Tense (morphematic usage)
I am there. (present)
I was there. (simple past)
I will be there. (future)

--and, in modal usage--
I should be there (internal obligation)
I might be there (non commital)
I shall be there (intention toward future - more obscure in modern English)
I will be there (intention/certainty toward future)

Don't forget each modal has a present and future inflection too.


----------



## SevenDays

That's fine; nothing wrong in disagreeing, and I'd ask you to check various sources that depart from traditional grammar when it comes to "future tense;" one that readily comes to mind is _The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language_. One rather odd feature of calling "will" a _future tense_ is that, when faced with a sentence such as _that will be Mary at the door now_, we'd have to backpedal and say something like "_will" marks the future tense, except where it marks the present tense_. I saw a cartoon once -- I can't remember where, perhaps _The New Yorker_, but I'm not sure -- where "eat" was conjugated in three tenses: past tense, _I ate_; present tense, _I eat_; certainty tense, _I will eat_. I thought it was funny, and spot on.
Cheers


----------



## Barbara S.

When I went to grammar school in New York in the 1950's we were taught that "will" was used to form the future tense in English. When I taught Spanish for 20 years in the U.S. the text books translated "I will go" as "iré". As to the difference between I'm going tomorrow, I will go tomorrow, and I will be going tomorrow". I see no difference, except maybe in certain contexts "i'm going tomorrow" is more definite. But I'm just as likely to say, "I'll be going to the store tomorrow, do you want me to get you anything" as "I'm going to the store tomorrow...." In all three cases, I'd translate it as "voy a la tienda mañana ..." 

As to the modal aspect, interestingly the Spanish future tense derives from the modal "haber". Iré was originally ir hé, irás, ir has, etc. The pronunciation didn't change when the form was shortened.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Barbara S. said:


> When I went to grammar school in New York in  the 1950's we were taught that "will" was used to form the future tense  in English. When I taught Spanish for 20 years in the U.S. the text  books translated "I will go" as "iré". As to the difference between I'm  going tomorrow, I will go tomorrow, and I will be going tomorrow". I see  no difference, except maybe in certain contexts "i'm going tomorrow" is  more definite. But I'm just as likely to say, "I'll be going to the  store tomorrow, do you want me to get you anything" as "I'm going to the  store tomorrow...." In all three cases, I'd translate it as "voy a la  tienda mañana ..."


Quite right, Barbara. You were taught correctly then and for now.  English most definitely has a future tense.


SevenDays said:


> That's fine; nothing wrong in disagreeing, and I'd ask you to check various sources that depart from traditional grammar when it comes to "future tense;" one that readily comes to mind is _The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language_. One rather odd feature of calling "will" a _future tense_ is that, when faced with a sentence such as _that will be Mary at the door now_, we'd have to backpedal and say something like "_will" marks the future tense, except where it marks the present tense_. I saw a cartoon once -- I can't remember where, perhaps _The New Yorker_, but I'm not sure -- where "eat" was conjugated in three tenses: past tense, _I ate_; present tense, _I eat_; certainty tense, _I will eat_. I thought it was funny, and spot on.
> Cheers


Yes, Seven. I appreciate some of the newer paradigms to explain and codify grammar. Language is evolving - albeit *very* slowly. Even your own RAE for the Spanish language never accepted "en caso que" and "a fin que" until recently. It was always "en case de que" and "a fin de que" for hundreds of years. But with the writing of the Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española a few years ago - many new rules emerged. I just don't want, on a forum for students, for us to lose ourselves in the "esoteric" rather than focus on the practical. For all practical purposes, grammatically and semantically, the English language has a future tense created with "will + infinitive". That's what students should learn first and foremost to get them fluent the most quickly. Then they will naturally eventually learn the modal use of 'will' too. 

Thanks for the exchange!


----------



## Barbara S.

In AE we would say "That must be Mary at the door now". But Spanish uses the future tense to indicate probability in the same way. "Tendrá 10 años." He must be 10. "Serán las 5." It must be 5 o'clock (already). And in Mexico if you ask an employee when his boss is coming back to the office, the answer is "no sabré decirle" which is considered much more polite than "no sé", but I guess you could translate as "I couldn't tell you [not even under torture because I really don't know].


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, NewdestinyX.

Every science has its own terminology, and linguistics — the scientific study of language — is no exception to the rule.
I think all linguists* agree on the definition of _morpheme_: "the smallest unit of meaning in a language" (e.g., the words _the, boy, out_ consist of one morpheme; the word _cats_ consists of two morphemes: "cat" and "s").

(*Quite a few French linguists, though, still employ the form "moneme").

Another way of describing what a morpheme is is the following, which has the advantage of showing the relation between written forms and sounds in language: "a distinctive collocation of phonemes that contains no smaller meaningful parts" (e.g., _cat_ is a "free form", while the "s" in _cats_ is a bound form.)

On the basis of this, I find that when you say " _'Will + infinitive' is indeed a morpheme to express it _" your use of the label "morpheme" is applied to a decidedly more complex grammatical structure: "will" is _one_ morpheme, and so is the "base-form" of the verb which follows it. We are in the presence of _two morphemes _(some would say "a morpheme and a lexeme"), and, for what I know, there's no labelling for this — unless we move from morphology to syntax, where "will+infinitive" may be said to constitute a Verb Phrase or a Predicate, etc., depending on the level of analysis . 

You also say that "_English does indeed have a future tense_".
I'm afraid we do not agree on this, and decades ago linguistic studies declared this to be a misconception: English —as has been pointed out several times in this thread — is endowed with a generous number of forms for the expression of _futurity_, but has noting comparable to the future tenses of Romance languages (German and other Germanic languages do make use of auxiliaries for the expression of futurity, but these auxiliaries do not carry with them the _modal charge _which characterizes English _will_).

In conclusion, we can say that:

1. English has _different ways_ to represent the notion of futurity, _among which_ the periphasis "will + base form of verb"
2. The periphasis "will + base form of verb" is used to express a variety of meanings,_ among which_ the notion of futurity.

As can be seen from the above hyper-simplified sketch, there's no one-to-one correspondence between "will + base form of verb" and the notion of futurity. 

GS


----------



## Barbara S.

Can't we just agree to disagree on this? Obviously there is a very big difference between the grammar terms used in linguistics and those used by teachers of foreign languages. I've read some Chomsky and there is no way I apply his insights to a language learning classroom. I use as a reference "A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish" by John Butt and Carmen Benjamin. It is (or was) a required text at the University of California, Berkeley. This text refers to will plus the infinitive as the English future. It is not a book on linguistics, it's meant to be used by language learners. There are people from many different backgrounds and educational levels on this forum, I am sure that Giorgio Spizzi and others have a lot to contribute, but some people are coming from a different place, as it were, and need information that isn't at such a high level. I don't have any "notions of futurity", I just know what works in the classroom and what is used in language learning text books. 

If you ask why the sky is blue, ultimately it comes down to our retinas and how brain interprets the spectrum. Other creatures do not see it as blue. In fact, blue is considered by some historical linguists the last color that enters a language. But that's not the answer that's most helpful to most people.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, barbara.

I appreciate your frankness very much.

I'd like, if I may, to add that I've been in the _EFL profession_ for quite a few decades now, and that the study of linguistics I've always considered to be an important complement to my teaching activity. 
If a "linguistic theory" gives a teacher of a foreign language the opportunity to _justify_ certain rules/structures and avoid having to resort to _ad-hoc_ rules every time students encounter an "unruly use of a given rule", I believe that that teacher should be ready to take advantage of the (new) insight and thus offer a better service to his/her pupils.

All the very best 

GS
PS I imagine the title of the book you're currently using is "A New Reference Grammar of Modern _English_" ?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo*Hello*, NewdestinyX.
> 
> Every science has its own terminology, and linguistics — the scientific study of language — is no exception to the rule.
> I think all linguists* agree on the definition of _morpheme_: "the smallest unit of meaning in a language" (e.g., the words _the, boy, out_ consist of one morpheme; the word _cats_ consists of two morphemes: "cat" and "s").
> 
> (*Quite a few French linguists, though, still employ the form "moneme").
> 
> Another way of describing what a morpheme is is the following, which has the advantage of showing the relation between written forms and sounds in language: "a distinctive collocation of phonemes that contains no smaller meaningful parts" (e.g., _cat_ is a "free form", while the "s" in _cats_ is a bound form.)
> 
> On the basis of this, I find that when you say " _'Will + infinitive' is indeed a morpheme to express it _" your use of the label "morpheme" is applied to a decidedly more complex grammatical structure: "will" is _one_ morpheme, and so is the "base-form" of the verb which follows it. We are in the presence of _two morphemes _(some would say "a morpheme and a lexeme"), and, for what I know, there's no labelling for this — unless we move from morphology to syntax, where "will+infinitive" may be said to constitute a Verb Phrase or a Predicate, etc., depending on the level of analysis .
> 
> You also say that "_English does indeed have a future tense_".
> I'm afraid we do not agree on this, and decades ago linguistic studies declared this to be a misconception: English —as has been pointed out several times in this thread — is endowed with a generous number of forms for the expression of _futurity_, but has noting comparable to the future tenses of Romance languages (German and other Germanic languages do make use of auxiliaries for the expression of futurity, but these auxiliaries do not carry with them the _modal charge _which characterizes English _will_).
> 
> In conclusion, we can say that:
> 
> 1. English has _different ways_ to represent the notion of futurity, _among which_ the periphasis "will + base form of verb"
> 2. The periphasis "will + base form of verb" is used to express a variety of meanings,_ among which_ the notion of futurity.
> 
> As can be seen from the above hyper-simplified sketch, there's no one-to-one correspondence between "will + base form of verb" and the notion of futurity.
> 
> GS


I hear your arguments, George, but there is a big difference between 'linguists' and 'grammar educators'. Linguists love the esoteric. They turn language into a science and part of me loves that. It's funny - if we were talking Spanish Grammar in this thread I would be on the 'other side' of all the arguments I'm making and am known for that on this forum. lol!!! But in the end the practical is what counts in learning language. We may have to agree to disagree that English 'can't' inflect the future without an adverbial of time. That's simply not true and the grammar books won't back you there unless they're from the most new-fangled sources, which are getting to esoteric for this language educator. I've already given examples of where the future "tense" in English is clearly understood without an adverbial of futurity or even a prior context of futurity. Simply the use of "will + infinitive" transmits the future. 

I will however concede your points about my expanded definition of "morpheme". I withdraw my assertion there. Your definition is the better one. 



Barbara S. said:


> Can't we just agree to disagree on this? Obviously there is a very big difference between the grammar terms used in linguistics and those used by teachers of foreign languages. I've read some Chomsky and there is no way I apply his insights to a language learning classroom.


Exactly Barbara. Chomsky would have been totally esoteric in a grammar classroom. He loved the theoretical and structural. And I'll admit I like that more in my 2nd language than my first. English has less "dimension" in the structural than do the Romance languages. I guess I'm biased against it (English) that way. 



Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo, barbara.
> 
> I appreciate your frankness very much.
> 
> I'd like, if I may, to add that I've been in the _EFL profession_ for quite a few decades now, and that the study of linguistics I've always considered to be an important complement to my teaching activity.
> If a "linguistic theory" gives a teacher of a foreign language the opportunity to _justify_ certain rules/structures and avoid having to resort to _ad-hoc_ rules every time students encounter an "unruly use of a given rule", I believe that that teacher should be ready to take advantage of the (new) insight and thus offer a better service to his/her pupils.


As an educator myself I will agree with this - with the above caveats I gave you. This is ultimately a forum of students learning their 2nd language. Rules are better. And simplifying things to their smallest common denominator is what serves the student the best for a practical mastery of the target language. That's why all student level grammar books about English I've ever consulted/used give English a 'clear' Future tense created with the modal verb "will".


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, New. (I don't know why you corrected my "Hullo" and changed it to "Hello". I imagine you like "Hello" better or consider "Hullo" out of fashion. In either case I don't think you ought to correct me — at least as long as I'm using a correct form of the language which, after all, is not the native tongue of either of us two) 

That said, I'll add that I _know_ the difference between a linguist and a language teacher. (Excuse me, but I consider "grammar educator" a bit "pretencioso y tambien ridículo"). So much so indeed, that I believe every teacher of a language which is foreign for the learners should take/have taken linguistics for at least one or two semesters. The more you investigate the language, the better will be your teaching of it. But in order to investigate a language one needs the "herramientas". 

I don't think "This is ultimately a forum of students learning their 2nd language." It can be, and is being, useful to teachers and other people interested in language(s).

My impression is that if we were discussing Spanish grammar you would come up with esoteric concepts yourself. I am wrong  ?  

All the best anyway, and please forgive me if I've been rude. I believe we are both "interesting guys".

GS


----------



## NewdestinyX

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo, New. (I don't know why you corrected my "Hullo" and changed it to "Hello". I imagine you like "Hello" better or consider "Hullo" out of fashion. In either case I don't think you ought to correct me — at least as long as I'm using a correct form of the language which, after all, is not the native tongue of either of us two)
> 
> That said, I'll add that I _know_ the difference between a linguist and a language teacher. (Excuse me, but I consider "grammar educator" a bit "pretencioso y tambien ridículo"). So much so indeed, that I believe every teacher of a language which is foreign for the learners should take/have taken linguistics for at least one or two semesters. The more you investigate the language, the better will be your teaching of it. But in order to investigate a language one needs the "herramientas".
> 
> I don't think "This is ultimately a forum of students learning their 2nd language." It can be, and is being, useful to teachers and other people interested in language(s).
> 
> My impression is that if we were discussing Spanish grammar you would come up with esoteric concepts yourself. I am wrong  ?
> 
> All the best anyway, and please forgive me if I've been rude. I believe we are both "interesting guys".
> 
> GS


LOL!! Yes we are, GS!!  .. But my mother tongue is English not Spanish. Yours is Spanish. And I assure you 'hullo' is not English. That's why I corrected you. Pero sí nos hace falta herramientas para enseñar (dar clases) bien. Estamos "en onda".


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Sorry. 
No, mine is Italian. I don't speak Spanish. 
And Hullo *is* English, especially British.
GS


----------



## NewdestinyX

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Sorry.
> No, mine is Italian. I don't speak Spanish.
> And Hullo *is* English, especially British.
> GS


Not according to my dictionary.  It may be a 'phonetic' spelling..


----------



## k-in-sc

"Hullo" is an accepted variant. Books with "Hullo" in the title


----------



## gringuitoloco

To throw a wrench in this discussion, I've heard a few times that a lot of languages no longer have (or never had) a future tense, technically, but rather the future was implied from an auxiliary/modal added to the infinitive. English has will/shall/could/etc. I also saw that the "future" tense of Spanish was originally the conjugation of _haber_ added to the infinitive (ir he: go I must) and it was just contracted to form a single word, so there technically wasn't a future tense in Spanish (or most, if not all of the Romance languages, as well as other languages) either. 

I think we should just assume that when someone says "the future tense", it means any auxiliary+verb combination that implies futurity.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, everyone.

Yes, among the languages I've studied, the phenomenon by which the "concept of futurity" is expressed by means of the *base form of the verb* (the "infinitive") plus the *personal forms of the Present Tense of the verb HAVE* are Portuguese, Spanish, French, Italian, Catalan, and a number of minor languages in the Mediterranean area. 

The man in the street is not aware of it: they will recite for you the six different forms of the *tense* which they have been taught to call "the Future of the Indicative". 

This way of building the future started when Latin began to decline and the new "vulgar" languages were taking its place in the different parts of the Roman empire throughout Europe. 
[Classical Latin did have a Future tense, with its own personal endings _-abo, _etc., but they were often confused with the Imperfect endings _-abam -abas, -abat,_ etc. so it's possible that the process of change to the "new" method was thereby accelerated).

Nowadays, the speakers of the languages I mentioned earlier, although unaware of all the transformations that have interested the passage from Latin to their own modern dialects of Latin — ie, their national languages — form the Future Tense by means of the infinitive of the verb (not just the root *(am-)* of the verb, but the whole word, mind you), *amar*, followed by the forms of the Present Tense of of HABER/AVOIR/AVERE/ (not the *endings*, but the whole word, mind you): *he, has, ha, hemos, habéis, han.*

Obviously a number of sounds were sacrificed in the passage. Therefore, by saying *amaré, amarás, amará*, etc. the native Spanish speaker is actually saying "amar+he", ie "He amar" or "He (que) amar", which is near to the concept of "tengo que amar". This is extremely interesting in that we can see that the "acontecimiento futuro" already belonged ("haber") to the speaker in his here and now, and that the "idea" of futurity was being felt as a sort of "weight" or or "burden" on the speaker's or on the interlocutor's shoulders — ie,  as a duty or obligation. [We could go as far as saying that the Future Tense is a tense of the present (time)].

I also find instructive that the Germanic languages — say, English, Swedish, Norwegian — have developed a system of _reference to futurity_ — and a system of Future Tenses — in which what I called the notion of "weight" or "burden" on the speaker's or on the interlocutor's shoulders is expressed via a number of modal auxiliaries expressing — among others — the notion of necessity, obligation, will, etc. : shall, will, skall, ska, vilja, etc.

GS


----------



## loudspeaker

Hullo is a  British variant of hello/hallo and is still in use but it is now the least usual. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/writersroom/posts/hullo_again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/simonmayo/2011/11/hullohello.shtml


----------



## juan2937

Guiriman said:


> Hi there. I have never really given it much thought before but it recently occurred to me that sometimes the future simple and future continuous may be completely interchangeable (for instance, "..., since I will go to university next year." and "..., since I will be going to university next year."). Another example that comes to mind is "John will pick you up at the airport" and "John will be picking you up at the airport". The problem lies in that these 2 sentences in future continuous would not sound right in Spanish if we were to use the Spanish future continuous, hence "..., since I will [go / be going] to university next year" would both be translated as "..., ya que el año que viene iré a la universidad" and "John will [pick / be picking] you up at the airport" both as "John te recogerá al aeropuerto".
> 
> What I would like to know is whether there's any difference in meaning between the future simple and continuous structures for the 2 examples above as I might want to point this out to a Spanish person I'm currently teaching English. Thanks.



I would like to add the following :

*Mary te estará recogiendo en el aeropuerto*, para mi implica un matiz de seguridad MAYOR que con el simple marcador modal de futuro will.
The progressive form embodies a nuance, tint of certainty than the simple will. That's the difference between Be *going *to and I will. If the one is your beloved girlfriend implies a warmth welcome.


----------

