# as soon as + future?



## pennylanejenny

Hi! Here the matter:

"Unfortunately I’m working for free and I consequently hope to get a good job as soon as I’ll finish this experience." Is it correct?
 
thanks a lot


----------



## elroy

No.  Lose the _'ll_.


----------



## LV4-26

_as soon as_ and _when_ both work exactly in the same way, that is, *not* the way we, speakers of Romance languages, generally expect them to.


----------



## Glinda

Your sentence is correct except for "Unfortunately, I’m working for free and I consequently hope to get a good job as soon as I finish this experience."
I write business communications and try to avoid negative references in letters and would suggest:
"I am currently doing volunteer work and I hope to get a paying job as soon as I finish this experience" or "finish my obligations."


----------



## pennylanejenny

Hi! Thankx so much to everybody! Your suggestions really helped me a lot!


----------



## M15i

I just want a little confirmation, it's impossible to found as soon as + will ? It's totally wrong, isn't it ?


----------



## -mack-

I cannot think of an example where as soon as + future is correct. 

"As soon as" implies that the thing has not happened yet, so future is already implicit, no need for _will_.

So, I would tentatively say yes, as soon as + will is always wrong.


----------



## dn88

-mack- said:


> I cannot think of an example where as soon as + future is correct.
> 
> "As soon as" implies that the thing has not happened yet, so future is already implicit, no need for _will_.
> 
> So, I would tentatively say yes, as soon as + will is always wrong.



Would you say that _"I will get there as soon as you will."_ instead of _"I will get there as soon as you do."_ is wrong? Because that's pretty much the only case I can think of in which "as soon as + will" doesn't seem so odd to me - when "will" is not followed by a verb.


----------



## -mack-

I would say "_I'll get there as soon as you do," _​in almost all situations.


----------



## M15i

I found this sentence in a serious book : "As soon as i will arrive, I will telephone you to confirm."
It's totally wrong, right ?


----------



## toway

This sentence would be working better:*

As soon as I arrive, I'll telephone you to confirm.*


----------



## JulianStuart

The phrase "as soon as X" contains the necessary sense of futurity, just like "when", so its verb does not need the future tense - so it's incorrect.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Don't forget that _will_ can have the sense of _being willing_ and in that sense_ as soon as you will _is quite possible.

For intance, _As soon as you will find the time to sit down and talk, I'll stop being angry with you _is fine, because it means _As soon as you are willing to find the time etc.  _The _as soon as_ is effectively followed by a present tense.


----------



## toway

_Would it be possible to build the phrase like this:
__
As soon as you will *to *find the time to sit down and talk, I'll stop being angry with you

?_


----------



## ldbyd

I don't think so.  Like others said, lose the* 'll*, and you don't need _*to*. _Let me give you some other subordinate conjunctions: *before, after, until, as soon as, when, while, if, etc.* 

** Use the simple present in a future time clause.

Before *I go to class tomorrow, I*'ll* tell her. (O)
*Before *I will go to class tomorrow, I*'ll* tell her. (X)
*Before *I 'm going to go to class tomorrow, I*'ll* tell her. (X)

_*- Before *I *go *to class tomorrow _is a time clause, and _I*'ll* tell her_ is a main clause.


----------



## WILL.IM

ldbyd said:


> I don't think so.  Like others said, lose the* 'll*, and you don't need _*to*. _Let me give you some other subordinate conjunctions: *before, after, until, as soon as, when, while, if, etc.*
> 
> ** Use the simple present in a future time clause.
> 
> Before *I go to class tomorrow, I*'ll* tell her. (O)
> *Before *I will go to class tomorrow, I*'ll* tell her. (X)
> *Before *I 'm going to go to class tomorrow, I*'ll* tell her. (X)
> 
> _*- Before *I *go *to class tomorrow _is a time clause, and _I*'ll* tell her_ is a main clause.



 Can i use this situation below?
Before *going* to class tomorrow, i'll tell her 


Before I'm going to class tomorrow, i'll tell her 
Before i will go to class tomorrow, i'll tell her < *will*/ *going to* is referring to the future, but *before* is referring to sth that didnt happen yet, so in this case is extremely wrong right?


Now *Before* i go to class tomorrow, i'll tell her. definitely i didnt know we can use _*Before i go*_, i thought we have to use 
Before/After + gerund of the verb .

Thanks


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I don't think _Before I will go to class tomorrow, I'll tell her_ would be said by anyone, because _will_ cannot mean _to be willing _here - after all your own actions have to be of a particular kind before they make you willing to do something.

If we are talking about a simple sequence of events, then it has to be_ Before I go to class tomorrow, I'll tell her.

_If you wan't to say _Before I will _(which has to have to sense of _willing_ in the structure) you've got to think of circumstances which make it plausible, e.g. _Before I will go to class tomorrow, you've got to apologise to me_.

ps. The thread is about _as soon as + the future_, but the same rules seem to me to apply.


----------



## ldbyd

_Before going _is surely ok  when the subjects in both clauses are the same. 

After *I* finish the work, *I*'ll give you a call. (O) 
After* finishing *the work, I'll give you a call.(O)
After I will finish the work, I'll give you a call.(X)
After I'm going to finish the work, I'll give you a call. (X) 

* You can enjoy these future time clauses in the same manner.
*
Before *I finish the work, I'll give you a call.
*After *I finish the work, I'll give you a call.*
As soon as* I finish the work, I'll give you a call.
*When *I finish the work, I'll give you a call.
*If* I finish the work, I'll give you a call.


----------



## wandle

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the view that 'as soon as' (or other conjunctions of time) cannot be followed by future forms of the verb.
In principle, it cannot be wrong to refer to the future by the future tense or the future perfect (as appropriate) in any of their forms.
Having said that, in ordinary colloquial usage, it is true that English idiom uses the present (and also past tenses) to refer to the future.
Thus, along with the examples offered above, the following is also ordinary idiomatic English: _As soon as I've heard from Fred, I'll let Bill know. He told me yesterday that as soon as he had heard from me, he would pay you the money.'_
I would maintain that while the above is idiomatic, the strictly correct form ought to be: _As soon as I shall have heard from Fred, I shall let Bill know. He told me yesterday that as soon as he should have heard from me, he would pay you the money.'_
This strictly correct form is not used colloquially, nor even in many cases in writing, but it remains correct. It is standard in important documents in law and politics and other fields. There are numerous examples available on the web. This search yields nearly 4bn pages. This search yields over 800m pages.  
Granted, even though I have narrowed the searches with some obvious exclusions, many of these pages are not relevant. Nevertheless, they still produce great numbers of relevant examples, many from legal documents.
Here are a few out of a dozen I noted:

Many therapists advocate partial weight bearing as soon as pain will allow.
http://www.sportsinjuryclinic.net/sport-injuries/ankle-achilles-shin-pain/sprained-ankle
The 509 Composite Group, 20th Air Force will deliver its first special bomb as soon as weather will permit visual bombing after about 3 August 1945 on one of the targets:  Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata and Nagasaki.
http://www.dannen.com/decision/handy.html
As soon as this Convention shall have been ratified by five of the High
Contracting Parties it shall come into force as between them
http://www.dot.gov/ost/ogc/Warsaw1929.pdf
DELIVER TO OWNER THE BILLS OF LADING FOR THE CARGO DULY ENDORSED AS SOON AS THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL HAVE ARRIVED.
http://www.rigos.com/oilcompanies.mobil.clauses.html


----------



## Thomas Tompion

wandle said:


> In principle, it cannot be wrong to refer to the future by the future tense or the future perfect (as appropriate) in any of their forms.
> [...]


I wonder about this principle by which a common grammatical mistake 'cannot be wrong'.


----------



## wandle

wandle said:


> In principle, it cannot be wrong to refer to the future by the future tense or the future perfect (as appropriate) in any of their forms.





Thomas Tompion said:


> I wonder about this principle by which a common grammatical mistake 'cannot be wrong'.



The qualifying expressions 'in principle' and 'as appropriate' show that erroneous uses are excluded from the scope of the statement. Attention is respectfully drawn to the correct uses cited.


----------



## modulus

You searched for ["as soon as * will" -possible -practicable -practical -convenient -feasible]


i just point out that your search query does not support your point because it includes such sentences as:
_*As soon as [he leaves, she] will...*_


----------



## wandle

modulus said:


> Just pointing out that your search query does not support your point because it includes such sentences as:
> _*As soon as [he leaves, she] will...*_


Please refer to post #19:


wandle said:


> Granted, even though I have narrowed the searches with some obvious exclusions, many of these pages are not relevant. Nevertheless, they still produce great numbers of relevant examples, many from legal documents.


There are many relevant examples included on those searches, but you have to wade through the irrelevant ones to find them. This does not in any way invalidate the positive results. If you can think of a better way to narrow the searches, that would be helpful.


----------



## modulus

I’m sorry wandle. In your post you mentioned "4bn page_s"_ as if that represents something. The only thing I wanted to point out is that it does not.


----------



## wandle

modulus said:


> I’m sorry wandle. In your post you mentioned "4bn page_s"_ as if that represents anything. The only thing I wanted to point out is that it does not.


I've explained that this is the narrowest search I can think of to show examples of correct usage of 'as soon as...will' ('as soon as' introducing the future tense).
This search brings up, as stated, 'great numbers' of examples of this correct usage.
As pointed out, these correct examples occur among many irrelevant examples.
So the claim made is that there are 'great numbers' of valid examples on the web.
That is a fact which you can confirm if you take the trouble to scan through the pages shown until you find relevant cases.
I'm sorry that I have not been able to narrow down the Google search more than that, but then I've already explained the limitations twice and have suggested: if you know a better way to narrow it down, please say what it is.


----------



## RainbowDash

There isn't a single entry in the 425M words Corpus of _Contemporary_ (1990-2011) Amerian English matching _as soon as * shall/will_.

On the other hand, _before/when/if * will_ is used quite often:

_They want to make sure everything is absolutely right *before they will* be prepared to use it.
I think it will still be another three to five years *before they will* have a product to wheel into their examining rooms
There will be many disappointed demonstrators, and that's *when they will* realize what the only alternative is.
House Republicans promise further cuts in the new Congress, *when they will* have the majority.

But it's hard to say *if they will* lead to a scar.
Some wonder *if they will* ever again see the money they lost._


----------



## wandle

RainbowDash said:


> There isn't a single entry in the 425M words Corpus of _Contemporary_ (1990-2011) Amerian English matching _as soon as * shall/will_.


This again does not in any way invalidate the many correct examples of that usage found by Google.


> On the other hand, _before/when/if * will_ is used quite often


This adds additional evidence to the point made in post #19.


----------



## RainbowDash

There are quite a few instances of_ as soon as * shall_ in the Corpus of Historical AmE, and most of them date back to the 19th century.
Yes, there _are_ valid examples, but I think this usage is obsolete.


----------



## wandle

RainbowDash said:


> There are quite a few instances of_ as soon as * shall_ in the Corpus of Historical AmE, and most of them date back to the 19th century.
> Yes, there _are_ valid examples, but I think this usage is obsolete.


I think it is alive and well, particularly in legal usage, along with _as soon as * shall have_. Two more cases:

Each member, shall, as soon as electric energy shall be available, purchase from the Cooperative all electric energy used on the premises specified in his application for membership,
http://www.pcemc.org/bylaws.html
It is planned that as soon as BPW Ormoc shall have been accepted as a Club by the International Federation of Business and Professional Women, TCF then will be turned-over to BPW Ormoc.
http://www.tcformoc.com/2011/12/tcf-ormocs-journey.html


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I wonder if, Wandle, you really go about the house saying

_As soon as the water *will be* hot, I'll shave.
Once *I will have* finished the gardening, I'll come in.
_
If you really are a native speaker of English, I'll be very surprised if you do.

There may be a point lurking somewhere in all this, but it will need articulating.

And it will need to compensate for the other point, that many other European languages use the future here, so many language teachers are correctly telling their pupils to avoid it in English.

The general rule is that we do not use the future in these cases. Where there are exceptions, they need explaining with care.


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> There may be a point lurking somewhere in all this, but it will need articulating.
> And it will need to compensate for the other point, that many other European languages use the future here, so many language teachers are correctly telling their pupils to avoid it in English.
> The general rule is that we do not use the future in these cases. Where there are exceptions, they need explaining with care.


This has, I believe, been covered by the following:


wandle said:


> In principle, it cannot be wrong to refer to the future by the future tense or the future perfect (as appropriate) in any of their forms.
> Having said that, in ordinary colloquial usage, it is true that English idiom uses the present (and also past tenses) to refer to the future.
> Thus, along with _the examples offered above_, the following is also ordinary idiomatic English: _As soon as I've heard from Fred, I'll let Bill know. He told me yesterday that as soon as he had heard from me, he would pay you the money.'_
> I would maintain that while the above is idiomatic, the strictly correct form ought to be: _As soon as I shall have heard from Fred, I shall let Bill know. He told me yesterday that as soon as he should have heard from me, he would pay you the money.'_
> This strictly correct form is not used colloquially, nor even in many cases in writing, but it remains correct. It is standard in important documents in law and politics and other fields. There are numerous examples available on the web.


The examples referred to in this passage (_the examples offered above_) are the examples put forward by earlier posters of the present tense expressing the future in ordinary idiomatic usage.



Thomas Tompion said:


> _As soon as the water *will be* hot, I'll shave.
> Once *I will have* finished the gardening, I'll come in.
> _


These examples seem to me perfectly correct, though not the ordinary idiomatic usage.


----------



## ldbyd

As we're talking about a simple sequence of events, I agree with Thomas Tompion. Still, I think it's great to share those ideas and links. Thanks a lot~! Wandle.


----------



## wandle

As for the task of the TEFL teacher, the best approach in my view would be to explain that the present tense is used idiomatically in most ordinary cases, while the strictly correct future tense is mainly used in legal documents and other contexts where verbal precision is vital.

-- You're welcome, Idbyd


----------



## Thomas Tompion

wandle said:


> _As soon as the water *will be* hot, I'll shave.
> Once *I will have* finished the gardening, I'll come in_
> 
> This examples seem to me perfectly correct, though not the ordinary idiomatic usage.



I find it hard to believe you are a native speaker of English then.  Have you looked at grammar books on this point?  They are pretty adamant.  Here's a typical example.  Please note the examples:
*Before
*

We will finish before he arrives.
She (had) left before I telephoned.

'Before' means 'before that moment'. It is important to remember that 'before' takes either the simple past OR the present.


----------



## wandle

There seems to me to be a need to accommodate in any explanation _both_ (a) the strictly correct cases of  the future tense following 'as soon as' _and_ (b) the ordinary idiomatic use of the present tense in its place. 
Posts 19, 31 and 33 seem to me to do that.


----------



## lucas-sp

I'm entirely in agreement with Thomas here. When wandle says:





> the present tense is used idiomatically in most ordinary cases, while the strictly correct future tense is mainly used in legal documents and other contexts where verbal precision is vital.


I think that "logic" and language are getting confused. There's no reason that what we call "the future tense" _must_ be used in all situations to refer to the future. We discuss future actions in English with different tenses all the time. And, I hate to say it, if using the _present_ tense in time clauses is in fact the standard way to refer to future actions in time clauses, the _present_ tense is "strictly correct." The other uses are exceptional - those are the "idiomatic" cases. 

But don't trust me. Take the advice of a non-native speaker who's learned this lesson, LV in post #3:





> _as soon as__and_ _when__ both work exactly in the same way, that is, *not *the way we, speakers of Romance languages, generally expect them to*. *_


Here we have a masterful non-native speaker of language presenting the rule, exactly as Thomas, rainbow, and ldbyd - and all their grammar books - present it. They should be taught that using the future tense in such clauses is only possible in certain exceptional cases. Then, we have to figure out _why_ the "will" should be preferred in these exceptional cases.

I wanted to look at some of the exceptions in detail, to see whether I could figure out how "will" becomes necessary.

_They want to make sure everything is absolutely right *before they will* be prepared to use it._This makes sense to me. They might not ever be prepared to use it, and they certainly aren't now. To say "before they are prepared" would make it sound more probable, and even potentially decided-upon. But the sentence, as written, is more open-ended - multiple things could happen in an uncertain future._

I think it will still be another three to five years *before they will* have a product to wheel into their examining rooms
_Here I would definitely prefer "before they have." There's no need to re-emphasize the future; "three to five years" has just been said. And it seems like they will definitely have a product. The "will" isn't doing anything except making the sentence clunky and strange-sounding._

There will be many disappointed demonstrators, and that's *when they will* realize what the only alternative is.
_This seems like oral speech that's been transcribed. This is clearly the wrong tense - it should be revised to "when they _have_ realized" or "when they _will have _realized." So it's not really a valid example of this exception, in my opinion.
_
House Republicans promise further cuts in the new Congress, *when they will* have the majority.
_"In the new Congress" isn't that strong of a future tense marker and the main clause is in the "present" tense, so "will" seems necessary to me here. I also wonder if "when" is actually the wrong conjunction. I would expect "in which."
_
But it's hard to say *if they will* lead to a scar._
This is clearly correct. Just think about the sentence without "will": "it's hard to say if they lead to a scar." The meaning is entirely different - without "will," it's an existential yes/no question with a decided answer (do burns lead to scarring? yes, in most cases). But this is different. It's about whether the burns you have will or will not lead to scarring in this precise instance. "Will" has to be here.

A case of "if" referring to the future would be something like: "If you arrive before I do tomorrow, start laying out napkins right away." No native speaker would use "If you will arrive" (although "If you _should_ arrive" would be possible) - in fact, "if you'll arrive" is completely different, since it's a request (and a form of "if you would arrive"). I think you can pretty clearly see that, although the potential action is in the future, the future tense isn't appropriate for this situation.


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> There's no reason that what we call "the future tense" _must_ be used in all situations to refer to the future.


There has been no suggestion of that: at least, not from me (see post 35).
I would not agree that the idiomatic usage should be regarded as strictly correct in place of the grammatical. This seems to turn the idea of correctness upside down. 
Both strict grammar and idiom, in my view, need to be accommmodated.
All the discussion of 'before' and other conjunctions seems to be straying off topic ('as soon as + future').


----------



## Thomas Tompion

wandle said:


> There has been no suggestion of that: at least, not from me (see post 35).
> I would not agree that the idiomatic usage should be regarded as strictly correct in place of the grammatical. This seems to turn the idea of correctness upside down.
> Both strict grammar and idiom, in my view, need to be accommmodated.
> All the discussion of 'before' and other conjunctions seems to be straying off topic ('as soon as + future').


But I think you need to understand that for me, at least, the way you use the words _grammatical_ and_ correct_ is strictly meaningless.

On a language forum you are presenting as correct and grammatical forms which if used in a job interview could cause one to be turned down on grounds of inadequate understanding of the language, and if used in written text could get you traduced as illiterate.

I just don't believe you go round the house saying things like _When it will rain, we'll bring in the garden furniture._


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> I just don't believe you go round the house saying things like _When it will rain, we'll bring in the garden furniture._


As indicated previously, although that is strictly correct, it is not ordinary idiomatic usage. In other words, it is not what people normally say.

It is perfectly possible for a teacher to point out to a learner that the usage you normally follow in speech and ordinary writing is different from that which you may find in a legal contract. 
A job applicant needs to be able to deal with both.


----------



## -mack-

wandle said:


> As indicated previously, although that is strictly correct, it is not ordinary idiomatic usage. In other words, it is not what people normally say.
> 
> It is perfectly possible for a teacher to point out to a learner that the usage you normally follow in speech and ordinary writing is different from that which you may find in a legal contract.
> A job applicant needs to be able to deal with both.



Are you kidding me? I'm sorry but most native speakers will think that sounds non-native or super-legal. You may believe it's correct, but almost everyone else would probably disagree with you.


----------



## lucas-sp

But the difference is that you're inverting the norm and the exception. Nobody would expect "will" in a time-clause (except, perhaps, ESL students from native languages that use "the future tense" in time-clauses) - it's an exceptional use that can be employed for various precise reasons. Calling the "legal" use of "will" in time-clauses (which, as I showed above, is not the only reason to use "will" in a time-clause) the "strictly correct" way to form this clause is confusing and unnecessary. 

The way you want to call this "when it will rain, we'll bring in the furniture" use "grammatically" or "strictly correct" is also iffy to me. How do you understand stricture or grammar here? There are multiple tenses in English that are used to discuss future actions, so there's no need that what we call "the future tense" be used for an underlying "strict" reason. And, as Thomas is pointing out, how can something be grammatically correct when it is completely contradicted by the way the language is spoken and used, even in very formal situations? (The "will" or "shall" might pop up in business documents, but I'd still say to the queen, "A Secret Service detail will meet you as soon as you arrive, Your Majesty.")

As I said, you're getting confused by an impulse towards "logicalness" that gets illogical when you forget that many tenses are used to express future actions, not just the "future tense." (In other words, the name "the future tense" is just a convenient tag, not a particularly definitive rubric.) Therefore, there's no reason why "as soon as you will arrive" should be more correct than "as soon as you arrive" - and usage and common sense dictate that, in fact, the latter is _much m__ore correct _than the former. 

Again, what we want to do is discuss the reasons why an English speaker might be led to break this rule. As we've seen, there are many situations when you might want to break the rule and use the exceptional "will." But please notice that both of these uses are "idiomatic" - there's an idiom for "legal contracts," and there's a convention for using "will" to re-emphasize the futurity of a time-clause if that is not strongly expressed. I think this is another moment of confusion for you.


----------



## wandle

I wonder if the words 'strictly correct' have given rise to misunderstanding.
This means 'correct if you take a strict grammatical view'.
It does not mean 'This usage must be adopted in all circumstances'.
On the contrary, particularly when contrasted (as here) with normal idiom, it is being distinguished from everyday practice.
Strict grammatical usage would be impossible to follow in everyday speech, and even in writing it may at times be impractical. But it still remains correct in the strict sense.


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> I wonder if the words 'strictly correct' have given rise to misundersanding.
> This means 'correct if you take a strict grammatical view'.


Grawr. Ok. But you still haven't said why "the future tense" is "strictly grammatical" in a future time clause.

(The reason why you think that the future tense is grammatically correct, I believe, is because you think that "the future tense" has some special relationship to the future, when in fact it doesn't. Many tenses can express future actions. And in a time clause like "When it rains we'll bring in the furniture" the present tense is expressing a future action, so the time of the clause is in the future, and this is grammatically and logically sound.)

In fact, it's grammatically correct to make future time clauses with the present and the future tenses. However, in English we normally (grammatically) make future time clauses with the present tense. Only in exceptional cases are we driven to use the future tense (also grammatically, but in a non-standard way).

Please explain why the future tense is "grammatically" correct. Do you think the grammar books that say that the present tense is grammatically correct in this situation are all confused about their goals and projects, or do you think maybe you've made a little slip-up in your logic?


----------



## wandle

As regards post #41, I would not agree that the use of the future following 'as soon as' is a legal idiom on a par with an everyday idiom or that correctness is measured by frequency of use. Strict correctness in language, as in other areas, is not always practical in everyday life, but we need to remain aware of it.


----------



## lucas-sp

Please tell me why the "future tense" is strictly correct in this situation. You've offered no compelling argument as to why it would be.

Correctness is measured by frequency (by situational frequency - correctness in language is based on norms of how certain ideas are conveyed in certain situations). So is grammar. And I'm sorry, but legal writing in no way is "more correct" than everyday language; however, its norms and idioms are based on a drive to increase precision as much as possible. This "extra preciseness" is exactly what I suggested as the reason a speaker could be driven to use the future tense in a time clause in #36.

Ta-da. If we accept the rule: "The present tense is used in future time-clauses, except when extra precision or emphasis on the future-ness of the verb is desirable, in which case the future tense can be used," then *the same rule governs both everyday and legal language*. This is a more satisfying conclusion, I think, and one that is A) easily understandable by non-natives and B) not completely in contradiction with the practices of native speakers.

Again, if we go all the way back to your original error, it's this:





> In principle, it cannot be wrong to refer to the future by the future tense or the future perfect (as appropriate) in any of their forms.


The future time is distributed among tenses in English; many different tenses are used to refer to future events. We have the present, the present continuous, the near future, the future, etc. These are not interchangeable, and no one is _essentially_ linked to the core of "future-feeling" or "future-y-ness" in English. So you're in fact right: in a situation like "As soon as it starts raining, we'll bring the furniture in" you _can_ refer to the future event with the future. But you can't do it _in this sentence_ - you need a different structure, like, for instance, "It will start raining soon." But the "as soon as" necessitates the present tense, _unless there's a compelling reason not to use it_​.


----------



## toway

What a great theme! Especially for native speakers. Eventually English seems not to be the simpliest language on the Earth.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I think, Wandle, you've reduced the expression 'strictly correct' to the meaningless.  You seem near to admitting that the form you are advocating is neither strict nor correct.

Putting that aside, I sense that you seem also to be saying that the form _'when a person will do something' _is the norm in legal language.  Do you have grounds for saying that?


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> I think, Wandle, you've reduced the expression 'strictly correct' to the meaningless.  You seem near to admitting that the form you are advocating is neither strict nor correct.


Afraid I wouldn't agree.


> Putting that aside, I sense that you seem also to be saying that the form _'when a person will do something' _is the norm in legal language.


Well, I'm not aware of having commented either on that form or on a norm in legal language.


----------



## wandle

As regards Lucas-sp's question, why the future tense is strictly correct following 'as soon as' in a clause referring to the future, it seems to me that whatever one says about the future tense, it must be allowed the possibility of referring to the future, exclusive of past or present.  Even though the present is often used idiomatically for the future, it does not possess this exclusive possibility.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

wandle said:


> Afraid I wouldn't agree.
> Well, I'm not aware of having commented either on that form or on a norm in legal language.


We've been discussing _when_ and _as soon as _+ the future tense - but you now say you've not commented on the form (?).

You've not commented on the norm in legal language either,  yet after I had pointed out that the form you were advocating, if used orally, could easily cause someone to flunk a job interview on grounds of inadequate English,  you said in your post #39, _It is perfectly possible for a teacher to point out to a learner that the usage you normally follow in speech and ordinary writing is different from that which you may find in a legal contract. A job applicant needs to be able to deal with both_. Yet now you say you haven't commented on norms in legal language.   

Your suggestion that your unidiomatic use was 'correct' in legal documents took me off to _Legal English and translation: theory & practice : annotated texts and documents_ by José Luis Sánchez Febrero.  Of the many when-clauses I could find in the book, not one used your formula.

I don't regard that as sufficient evidence.  I wondered if you really knew.


----------



## wandle

I don't know where this talk about 'when' is coming from. I've been looking at 'as soon as' introducing the future tense, which is the subject of the thread.
The advice a teacher might give a learner about distinguishing ordinary idiom from strictly correct usage simply reflects what I've been saying all along. I pointed out that the strictly correct usage is found in many legal documents. 
However, I have not commented on a 'legal norm'. As mentioned earlier, I do not agree that there is a legal idiom on a par with everday idiom.


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> whatever one says about the future tense, it must be allowed the possibility of referring to the future, exclusive of past or present.  Even though the present is often used idiomatically for the future, *it does not possess this exclusive possibility.*


...and neither does the future. What we call "the future tense" is only usable for some varieties of future action, and in certain situations of locution. The name is a heuristic, not a stricture - and this is your mistake. Taking the name of the "future" tense literally, you've decided that it must, in all situations, cover all future actions. It's just not true. In fact, it's an equivocation.

And again, *grammatically speaking*, one of the uses of the present is to discuss future action. Any grammar book will tell you this! (Grammatically speaking, the present tense can be used to express past, present, and future actions. We really put it to work in English.) But you've decided that its name means that it's only "grammatically correct" to use the present tense to discuss present actions, or that it's somehow "more correct" to use the future tense to discuss future actions, because then the names match up. 

It isn't. *In time clauses, the present tense is used to express future actions, unless the future tense is used for emphasis or precision.*

Here's where you go wrong on "idiomatic": "idiomatic" does not mean "formally incorrect but often in use." It just means "often in use." Speaking correctly is idiomatic. Speaking incorrectly, when the situation warrants it and _in a standard way_, is idiomatic as well (for instance, "the guy who I met the other night"). So both the "normal" use of the present and the "normal aberration" of the future in these clauses, as in what you've been calling "legal language" and what I've been describing as a rhetorical strategy in no way confined to legal uses, are idiomatic. "Idiomatic" is by no means incompatible with "grammatical."

And here's where you go wrong with the argument about the future. You totally can use the future tense to refer to the actions described in a time clause - just not, normally speaking, _inside that very time-clause_. It's quite simply not appropriate. I honestly find it shocking that we have to make this point - you can't use any tense in any situation, you have to use the right tense for the right context. Compare:

It'll start raining, just you wait.
As soon as it starts to rain, we'll turn back.
It's about to start raining.
It's starting to rain.

Same action, all acceptable phrases. But if it is, imminently, about to start raining, it would be highly odd for me to say "It'll start raining," n'est-ce pas? It all depends on the situation. And it's so, so silly to try to claim otherwise (and highly confusing, to boot - seriously, look how simply the non-native speakers described just this situation; this rule didn't confuse them one bit).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

wandle said:


> [...] As mentioned earlier, I do not agree that there is a legal idiom on a par with everday idiom.


So you don't know whether legal language departs from the normal language in its treatment of 'as soon as' clauses?


----------



## wandle

@Lucas-sp #52:
We clearly have different ways of looking at the matter. I do believe there is a distinct difference between tenses. I maintain the distinction between grammatical and idiomatic as reflecting the tension between logic and usage which affects every language and is comparable to other aspects of experience.


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> I do believe there is a distinct difference between tenses.


As do I, obviously. I'm the one who's arguing _for_ the differentiation of tenses - saying, for instance, that there's a job that the future tense doesn't usually do. You're conflating tenses here. 

You misunderstand how tenses are categorized. The name "future tense" is only the name of the verb form that consists of "will + stem." It's called "the future tense" because it is most famous for referring to future actions, but it's the name of a structure, not a content. Ditto for the present tense and the past tense. I'd suggest that you try thinking of the "future tense" not as having something necessary and essential to do with the _future_, but instead as merely being the "will + stem" form of a verb. 



> I maintain the distinction between grammatical and idiomatic as reflecting the tension between logic and usage which affects every language and is comparable to other aspects of experience.


Then you are quite simply not operating with an idiomatic or grammatical (or correct) understanding of the words "idiomatic" and "grammatical." Sorry. Grammar describes the standard rules of operation in a language, and idiomatic describes the most common situational structures in which those rules may or may not apply. It is not true that idiomatic language is anti-grammatical by nature. Finally, grammar rules are standardized out of everyday usage; they are not a prioris that are then degraded or perverted by usage.

And one last thought: I strongly doubt anyone would seriously subscribe to your claim that there is an underlying _logical_ framework to language. That's a nice intuition, but empirically and theoretically it doesn't work out, particularly in the case of English. Sometimes we luck out and grammatical rules are logical, but most often they are not. Your attempts to make logic work as a foundation for English lead to unacceptable sentences like "When it will start raining we will bring in the furniture" that no reasonable native speaker would accept. I don't really want to get so exercised about this, but I just feel like your advice ("Learn this wrong rule and then make sure you always speak 'incorrectly' in everyday situations") is deeply misleading, particularly for, say, those students of English who happen to be on these forums a lot.


----------



## ldbyd

#36 posted by _Lucas-sp _is absolutely a great help. It’s still hard for me to agree with _Wandle_ though, thanks to him, we now have remarkable arguments, some of which are even magnificent. This is why I love this forum. Seriously, I need to make a donation.

Look at this thread: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2374113&p=11929393 
Nobody said “No”, and nothing was brought into question. Of course, _Copyright_ always helps me, and I’m so grateful. Although there seems no room for argument, it could’ve been much better if more people had shed light on the matter, n’est-ce pas? 

Getting back to this thread, since_ Lucas-sp_’s argument seems flawless to me, I have nothing to add. But I feel the need to point out something *for those non-native English speakers* because some of them would feel really confused, otherwise. I just want to show how to tell time-related *adverbial *clauses from *noun* clauses with their different grammar usages in terms of the tense, hoping my friends can enjoy them with a better understanding and less fear. If I make any mistake, please feel free to help me.

*First, you need to understand this:*



lucas-sp said:


> _
> But it's hard to say *if they will* lead to a scar._
> This is clearly correct. Just think about the sentence without "will": "it's hard to say if they lead to a scar." The meaning is entirely different - without "will," it's an existential yes/no question with a decided answer (do burns lead to scarring? yes, in most cases). But this is different. It's about whether the burns you have will or will not lead to scarring in this precise instance. "Will" has to be here.
> 
> A case of "if" referring to the future would be something like: "If you arrive before I do tomorrow, start laying out napkins right away." No native speaker would use "If you will arrive" (although "If you _should_ arrive" would be possible) - in fact, "if you'll arrive" is completely different, since it's a request (and a form of "if you would arrive"). I think you can pretty clearly see that, although the potential action is in the future, the future tense isn't appropriate for this situation.




*Exactly! *The meaning is different, and that’s why he mentioned “logic”.


*Referring to the future,
*


I’ll give you a call *when* she *finishes* the work*. = When* she *finishes* the work*,* I*’ll* give you a call*.*
I’ll give you a call *if* she *finishes* the work*. = If* she *finishes* the work*,* I’ll give you a call*.*
I don’t know *when* she*’ll* finish the work
I’m wondering *when* she*’ll* finish the work. 
I’m wondering *if* she*’s ever going to* finish the work. (Well, you may say: if she’s ever gonna finish…) 
I’m not sure *if* she *will* work again.



*Simply put:*

1/2) The clauses introduced by *when* or* if *are dependent/subordinate/*adverbial* clauses, so-called a*time clause *and a _conditional clause_ respectively. I believe it’s safe to use _the present tense_ after _time conjunctions (before, after, until, as soon as, when, while, etc.) _while using *will *in the main clause. Without a time clause, a main clause can still stand alone as a sentence with a complete sense.

3/4/5/6) The clauses introduced by *when* or *if *function like objects, and they are *noun*_ clauses._ You can enjoy the future tense including _will_ referring to the future. Unlike time clauses, you need those noun clauses to complete your ideas in the sentences. (See, I’m not sure – You’re not sure what?)

“If you *should* arrive” sounds good to me as well, so it would be another pleasure to learn the verb in the subjunctive sometime.


----------



## se16teddy

pennylanejenny said:


> "Unfortunately I’m working for free and I consequently hope to get a good job as soon as I’ll finish this experience." Is it correct?


As the discussion above suggests, "correct" is never an easy category to apply to English.  To my mind, it is not a very useful category either, except to school teachers who have to mark their students' work. 
I think that _I hope to get a good job as soon as *I've finished *this experience _is more natural.


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> "Learn this wrong rule and then make sure you always speak 'incorrectly' in everyday situations"


This caricature implies a supposed opposition between grammar (correct) and idiom (incorrect).  That has not been suggested.  It is reasonable to distinguish between degrees of correctness.  Einstein showed that Newton's theory is not strictly correct, but that does not stop engineers, bridge builders and others from using it in practice: quite rightly.  It is correct for ordinary purposes. 
I would see the logic of grammar and the currency of idiom as being in tension, each playing a part in the structure and formation of language, which is a living thing, reflecting our ongoing engagement with reality, of which logic is part.

If I may restate my point, responding to early posts:  
it is not correct to say that 'as soon as' (or other conjunctions of time) cannot be followed by future forms of the verb.

Here are some more examples (not all from legal documents):
Simply, as soon as someone will agree to give it to you.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_soon_after_foreclosure_can_you_get_another_home_loan
the righteous will rise in the morning of the resurrection, and so will have the dominion in the morning, Psalm 49:14, even at the beginning of the thousand years, as soon as Christ will come;
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
http://bible.cc/1_thessalonians/4-16.htm
Perhaps things will become more clear as soon as those markets will provide a wide range of Android phones for users to choose from,
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Android-Market-Available-in-Five-New-Countries-102354.shtml
I wish to have information on the subject as soon as your convenience will permit
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/28451.aspx
the program director will notify the resident about the non-renewal of the Resident Agreement as soon as circumstances will reasonably allow.
http://academicdepartments.musc.edu/gmehandbook/policies/appoint_res.html
further information will be sent to you as soon as a specific date will be known.
http://www.mcgill.ca/channels/announcements/
Where real estate is granted to a person when or as soon as he shall attain a given age
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/507/177/4858/
As soon as you shall lay your eyes on the immaculate landscape of the country of Greece
http://www.united-hellas.com/tourism/four-seasons/index.htm
The weight limits or speed limit or height limit fixed with respect to traffic using any bridge shall become effective for the purposes of this regulation as soon as there shall be erected at each end of the bridge a sign indicating the weight limits or speed limit or height limit so fixed.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1982/0047/latest/DLM80398.html
the balance remaining unpaid shall be returned to the General Fund out of
the fund as soon as it shall become available
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=19001-20000&file=19230-19245


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Learners know, thank Goodness, that there are a lot of illiterate people in the world.


----------



## lucas-sp

> If I may restate my point, responding to early posts:
> it is not correct to say that 'as soon as' (or other conjunctions of time) cannot be followed by future forms of the verb.


Uh... yeah. That's exactly what I'm saying. Did you not read my posts 45, 52, and 36 (in which I consider examples of future forms in time clauses)? But I'm not saying - like you are - that it's always correct to use the "will + stem" verb form with a time clause. I'm saying that you can use the "will + stem" form, when the situation calls for it - because of a need for extra emphasis or precision. _But these time-clauses with "will + stem" are the exceptional cases_, as (almost) every English teacher, English speaker, and English grammarian will assert.

You are claiming that the "will + stem" form is _always_ possible to use in time clauses with future actions. That is not only wrong, but misleading and, frankly, a bit silly.

And now, my final theoretical nitpicks.





> This caricature implies a supposed opposition between grammar (correct) and idiom (incorrect). That has not been suggested. It is reasonable to distinguish between degrees of correctness. Einstein showed that Newton's theory is _not strictly correct_, but that does not stop engineers, bridge builders and others from using it in practice: quite rightly. _It is correct for ordinary purposes. _
> 
> I would see the _logic of grammar and the currency of idiom as being in tension_, each playing a part in the structure and formation of language, which is a living thing, reflecting our ongoing engagement with reality, of which logic is part.


1. Again, you're the one making a distinction between "correct grammar" and "incorrect idioms" (I highlighted the phrases that rely upon such an assumption), because of your Platonic presumption that the correct grammar is "logical" and that life is "messy." This viewpoint forecloses upon both the logic of life and the messiness of grammar. It also makes a quite mistaken assumption about the scientificity of grammar. Grammar isn't Einstein's theory of relativity, as if Einstein's theory of relativity isn't also a stopgap generalization meant to describe our observations of various phenomena. (Wait, maybe grammar is akin to Einstein's theory, in that both are descriptive - and as "logical" as possible - rather than proscriptive and "strictly" schematic. And that there are plenty of things in the world that neither of them can explain exhaustively.) Logic is itself another language, with different rules, expressing a different kind of human fantasy about the way the world works. And it's messy, sloppy, and inconsistent - just like all languages (cf. Gödel). (Also, historically, logic emerges after language, so it can't have been "the instigator" behind languages, except for synthetic languages. And we know how well those all turn out.)

2. Please look up "idiom," and how it's used by actual scholars who discuss language. It does not mean "ungrammatical." (You don't get to have it both ways. You can't say that I'm caricaturing your argument by showing how you assume that grammar is "logical" and "correct" and idiom is not, and then say that grammar is "strictly correct" and idiom is not. Eh?)

2a. Both "idiomatic" and "grammatical" are based on frequency of use. (That is, again, to say that grammar is heuristic; grammar is on the side of the bridge-builders.) Believe it or not, a coterie of super-intelligent but mute apes did not sit down and decide how they wanted English to work, so that it would accord with obvious and agreed-upon logical foundations. English - like all languages - was created by people making similar kinds of weird, idiosyncratic, random statements until they coalesced into a system.

3. Who does it help, again, to say that forming time clauses with the "will + stem" form is always correct? Certainly not anybody who actually wants to talk English. You claim that your "logical" framework makes more pedagogical sense as an explanation (that it's easier to understand since it's more "logical"), but it isn't embraced by either language textbooks... _or non-native learners of English_. I base this upon the empirical data provided by the early posts in this thread.


----------



## wandle

@ Lucas-sp:
Thanks for your comments. I stand by the view (a) that the usage shown by examples in posts 19 and 58 is correct and reflects the strict application of English grammar; (b) that that usage is always potentially applicable in similar contexts; (c) that the ordinary idiomatic use of the present tense in such contexts is sanctioned by custom, even though illogical; (d) that putting the two usages on a par and validating them exclusively by context destroys the logic of the grammar; and (e) that the relation of grammar and idiom in general is an interplay between poles on a continuum, not an exclusive disjunction.


----------



## Viobi

Thank you guys for this highly palatable discussion. I mean it. 

Now, as a non-native and ex-teacher of EFL, I'd like to stress a few things.

a)  I was appalled, as were the rest of the kids in the class, when I first  heard my English teacher explain that we should say "I'll meet you at  the station when you get there." and not "I'll meet you at the station when you will get there." Conflicting frames of mind (I wouldn't go as far as to call them logics).  Obviously, the English way of looking at it is "since we're obviously  talking about the future, it would be inelegant to stress it". The  French way is rather "since we're obviously talking about the future,  why should we try not to say it?".
It reminds me of comparative table  manners.  French kids are always told (and mine are no exception) they  should eat with both their hands in full view of everybody: if you're  not actually using your knife, then rest your useless hand on the table  near your plate. Otherwise, the question that will instantly  spring to  every mind is, "Why on earth is he/she hiding his/her hand under the  tablecloth and on _whose _lap exactly is it really resting (that is, assuming it is _resting_ on a _lap_)?!" 

b)  I was appalled (again) when I tried to pass on the rule to my pupils.  It just didn't make sense to them. And I didn't have any better  arguments to convince them than my teacher had when I was the pupil.

c)  Between events a) and b), I spent a number of years on university  benches, and many hours listening to grammar freaks who'd battle school  against school, article after article, on the subjects of enunciative  grammar, descriptive grammar, analytic grammar and whatnot grammar. They  all agreed on very few points, one of which was "there are only two  tenses in English: the present, marked by nothing in particular except  an S in the third person singular, and the past, marked by the -ED  ending." Strictly speaking, according to those specialists, there is no  future tense in English at all. The is of course such a thing a a sense  of "futurity" (sorry about that), and many ways to express it, including  through modal auxiliaries (such as WILL, the temporal-aspectual values  of which have been/are/will surely be for many years to come the subject  matter of an incredible number of PhDs). Just teasing of course, but it  would explain in part the use: the fact that the "will" bit in "it will  rain" is not part of the verb (as a tense mark would be) implies it can  safely (and probably should, see table manners) be left aside when not  needed to make the sense clear.

d) And this is quite off-topic,  but I always love it when I see the queen brought in kicking ans  screaming to serve as the ultimate argument for the righteous. "I  would/wouldn't say/do that in front of the queen". Definitely enjoyable  seen from a Republic. Keep going.


----------



## coolieinblue

Back to the original post, I think there couldn't be the only proper answer to be found since 'as soon as' is always carrying some sense of assuming, presuming, involving, or engaging the listener's understanding.

My favorate : Thomas' & lucas'


----------



## lucas-sp

> "there are only two tenses in English: the present, marked by nothing in particular except an S in the third person singular, and the past, marked by the -ED ending." Strictly speaking, according to those specialists, there is no future tense in English at all. The is of course such a thing a a sense of "futurity" (sorry about that), and many ways to express it, including through modal auxiliaries


Yes, exactly. That's why it makes no sense to fetishize the name of the "future" tense. I think pretty much any tense in English - including the past tense in exceptional situations - can be used to described future actions. They're all, potentially, "future tenses" inasmuch as they all can give the feeling of "futurity" or "future time."

And that's why it makes no sense to say that it's "more logical" to use the "future tense" (i.e. the "will + stem" form) in these time clauses, since the present tense also carries future meaning.





> I always love it when I see the queen brought in kicking ans screaming to serve as the ultimate argument for the righteous. "I would/wouldn't say/do that in front of the queen". Definitely enjoyable seen from a Republic.


And don't forget, I'm an American! But it's her birthday this year, or something, so we can throw her a bone, the old dear.





> (c) that the ordinary idiomatic use of the present tense in such contexts is sanctioned by custom, even though illogical; (d) that putting the two usages on a par and validating them exclusively by context destroys the logic of the grammar


Here you can see that there is quite simply no question that wandle associates "grammar" with "logic" and "idiom" with "illogic" _and hence ungrammatical usage_. Not the definition of grammar (nobody said grammar was logical, just that it tended towards being systemic - so people confusedly believe it to be logical), and not the definition of idiomatic usage.





> (a) that the usage shown by examples in posts 19 and 58 is correct and reflects the strict application of English grammar; (b) that that usage is always potentially applicable in similar contexts


This is, of course, exactly what I've said. I've just said it in such a way as to not call forming time clauses with the present tense "incorrect" or "illogical," and I've done the logical thing and said that these cases are the norm and the others the exception. My suggested rule did allow for the use of the future tense when needed or desired, as Viobi states, to make the sense clear (or more emphatic). I also explained syncretically how both the legal examples and the everyday examples of time clauses with "will + stem" can be understood in the same way, by means of the same mechanics. I just did the much more "logical" thing and called norms norms and exceptions exceptions. Blablabla.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hi Viobi,

Very good to hear from you.  I hope you're clear that we really do say _As soon as it rains, I'll bring in the garden furniture_, and not something else.  It sounds to me as though your pupils are in good hands.


----------



## morbo

May I chime in? Ok, I may. (Though my worthless opinion may well and most probably will be disregarded, the thread is already as rambling as it gets, so I think I can indulge in ramblings a bit.)


Doesn't it all really boil down to the way English marks subordinate clauses for tense? There's no logical need at all to mark a subordinate clause for futurity if it describes an event that took place before that of the main clause. A main clause in the future tense sets a time-frame and everything subordinate to the main clause (expressed using the simple or perfect present) will be construed as having happened before or happening at the same time with it.


"I'll call John when I have time."
"I'll go drinking and misbehaving myself after I've finished working."


But then there could be cases where there are multiple co-existent time-frames, each governing something:


"I can imagine even now how John will appear at Mary's door saying that he is sorry and if she takes him back he will not beat her dog anymore."

*edit:* What was written below was rubbish. Not only was it rubbish, it was also an incoherent one.


----------



## Forero

I agree for the most part with Wandle. In some of the sentences he sites, modern and otherwise, I would not feel compelled to remove the _will_ or _shall_, and I am surprised so many people think doing so would improve all of those sentences.

Actually, I was the odd man out in another thread about this same subject, and no one offered me a "reason" for what seems to be an odd requirement for dropping certain verbs from certain subordinate clauses.

I am happy to see that Morbo has offered us an explanation, namely that, under certain conditions, there is "no logical need" to mark a subordinate clause for futurity alone. And I am glad to see Morbo's mention of perfect aspect, because the same pædagogical conflicts tend to rear their heads every time that subject comes up too.

As I see it, English does not have a simple future tense as French does, or a clearly distinguishable present subjunctive as Spanish does. We use and reuse _will_, _shall_, _be going to_, and other verbs to express futurity, but I would be hard pressed to find a sentence in which futurity is the only thing expressed by such verbs.

As I see it, simpler verb phrases often help sentence flow, but when a sentence needs a little slowing down, I have no problem with putting in the implied _have_, _had_, _will_, _shall have_, or whatever. In fact simpler verb forms can be misleading, and in context these "extra" verbs can remove unwanted ambiguity, which makes them especially useful in legal documents.

On top of this, as has already been mentioned, we use _will_, and the other "future" forms, to express willingness, among other things besides simple futurity, and some sentences are clearly wrong without the _will_. In such cases, I feel _will_ should follow the same rules as _can_, _may_, _would_, or _should_. "I wish he would come with us" does not mean the same as "I wish he came with us", and "We can leave as soon as he will come with us" is not the same as "We can leave as soon as he comes with us."

I would like to be able to discuss the subject without claiming that some of us natives accept and say things that no normal native would accept or say. I am truly curious what has turned so many users of modal verbs against their use in the environments Morbo has indicated.


----------



## lucas-sp

Forero said:


> Actually, I was the odd man out in another thread about this same subject, and no one offered me a "reason" for what seems to be an odd requirement for _dropping certain verbs_ from certain subordinate clauses.


I don't think that, in a sentence like "If you arrive at seven tomorrow, I'll be waiting for you," the verb "will" was _dropped_ from the if-clause. Likewise for "When you arrive at seven tomorrow, I'll be waiting for you." This is because the _norm_ (the grammatical rule) is to form these phrases without "will."

The _exception_ is that "will" or "shall" (etc.) is added back in. So we need to explain the reasons for the _employment_ of modals in these phrases, not vice-versa. You hit the nail on the head when you suggest various reasons to use "will" or "shall": to slow the reader down, to increase precision, to add emphasis. This is what I've been saying for a while. The sentence "When you'll be arriving at seven tomorrow, I'll be waiting for you" is emphatic, grammatical, and idiomatic.

Really, think of the question not as "Why don't we use 'will' all the time?" but instead "Why do we sometimes use 'will'?" and everything becomes much clearer. (The first question can only be answered as "because ordinary speech is incorrect by nature," but the second one produces the correct and convincing answer that you suggest in your fifth paragraph.)

Finally, again, I want to reiterate a previous point: sometimes it is very much incorrect to leave out "will." But also _sometimes it is incorrect to use "will."_ My example of this was the sentence "If you'll arrive tomorrow at seven, I'll be waiting": this sentence means "Please arrive tomorrow at seven, and I'll be waiting for you then." So this is a situation where you can't express the same thought using the present and the "will + stem" form. "If you arrive tomorrow at seven..." and "If you'll arrive tomorrow at seven..." mean totally different things. Again, this is part of my evidence for the claim that the "will + stem" form is not more correct than other possible forms, but that they are correct for different purposes and in different contexts.


----------



## ldbyd

@wandle
I think I understand what you're getting at because I read hundreds of pages of legal documents everyweek, but I'm sure we can agree that _will or shall_ doesn't simply mean futurity in legal terms.  So I believe you can undertand why I agree more with Lucas-sp. However, when I said "_simple present_" at first, you wanted to help me (not only me , I know) since there're more than just "simple" in fact. I know, so I do appreciate your comment. It could've been better if I'd said just "_present_", at least, as I also enjoy_ "present perfect"_ like "as soon as I've finished..." Anyway, I hope you know that I appreciate your arguments and new insights. (I visited the linked sites as well!)


----------



## modulus

Forero said:


> "I wish he would come with us" does not mean the same as "I wish he came with us", and "We can leave as soon as he will come with us" is not the same as "We can leave as soon as he comes with us."


Perhaps English lacks that degree of subtlety in a single phrase. We just have to rely on context.


----------



## wandle

Thanks, Idbyd, you're welcome.


> I'm sure we can agree that _will_ or _shall_ doesn't simply mean futurity in legal terms.


Well, I don't see a difference between correct use of English and legal use of English. There is legal terminology and legal phraseology, which add up to what we call legal language, but strict grammar is the same in any field. 
As to _will_ and _shall_, yes, these are verbs with various uses, which I'm sure have been discussed before on WR, but the examples in posts 19 and 58 were selected to show strict future use following 'as soon as'. I believe they are all valid examples of that. There are plenty more out there.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

But, in my view, Wandle has reduced the word _correct_ to meaninglessness in this thread, so I've little idea of what his post means.  I wonder why he suggested earlier that the formula he was recommending was used in legal documents, when he seems reluctant to give examples of this use there.

I'm happy to grant that I've come across examples like _even at the beginning of the thousand years, as soon as Christ will come _which he quotes, but only in the prose of people who want to sound ponderous, and, usually, died several centuries ago .  But I don't give much credit to the inflated language of a eighteenth-century Baptist preacher as support for a view about the way English is spoken now, in the light of numerous objections from people who refuse to endorse Wandle's apparent recommendation that we should say: _as soon as it __will stop raining, I'll bring in the garden furniture._

 I don't think Wandle ever answered the question about whether he really would say that.


----------



## wandle

There are four legal instances in post 58, one in post 19 and many more on the web. Religious commentary may seem ponderous, as legal and political language may too, but in all these contexts correct grammar is recognised as important.
Those (and other) posts also give my comments (rather than recommendations) on the other questions.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

And the question remains unanswered.


----------



## wandle

'Did!' 'Didn't!' 'Did!' 'Didn't!' etc. etc....


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Maybe you see it like that.  I just wonder why you won't answer the question.  If you think it unreasonable, you have only to say so.  As I see it, I'm just asking whether you yourself follow your own advice in conversation, or, indeed, in writing.  I've just never come across an English native who would use the expression, and you are the first native speaker I've come across who has held that we talk like that.


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> I just wonder why you won't answer the question.


Well, since you're so persuasive, I'll give it another go, though I don't know how many repetitions are needed. 
I have only been commenting, not recommending.
The point was covered in my first post: 





wandle said:


> in ordinary colloquial usage, it is true that English idiom uses the present (and also past tenses) to refer to the future.


and consistently maintained:


wandle said:


> I stand by the view...that the ordinary idiomatic use of the present tense in such contexts is sanctioned by custom...


Hope this helps.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Thank you.  So the answer is no, you don't say  _as soon *as it *__*will stop* raining, I'll bring in the garden furniture.

_Like the rest of us you say _as soon as it stops raining, I'll bring in the garden furniture_.

I think this is what teachers and learners the world over need to hear from this thread, and I'm anxious that this important point should be entirely clear.


----------



## Forero

I would say "As soon as it will stop raining, we can have a picnic" in the same context as "I wish it would stop raining so we can have a picnic", but I hesitate to call _will_ "future tense" in this case, or _would_ "conditional".

And I have no problem saying the following:

_They'll as soon use "agonna" as I will use "fixing to"._
_I can probably get that done for you next week, when I'll be back from Texas._


----------



## boozer

Forero said:


> _They'll as soon use "agonna" as I will use "fixing to"._


Is this not the same _will_ as the one in _This door will not open no matter how hard I try to open it?_ I would call it the _will _of willingness simply because I cannot remember its proper name.  If it has one, that is...


Forero said:


> _I can probably get that done for you next week, when I'll be back from Texas._


This does not surprise me at all - I interpret it to mean "when I will have already returned from Texas". It does not necessarily mean you will return next week - it tells me that next week you will already be here. 

I am a bit worried about your first example, though - I don't know what to make of it.  I have to think about it.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> [...]And I have no problem saying : _I can probably get that done for you next week, when I'll be back from Texas._



I could say it too.  Don't you think that's because _when I'm back from Texas _is qualifying _next week_ rather than providing a temporal frame for _I can probably get that done for you_?

We couldn't say _I can probably get that done for you, when I'll be back from Texas_, could we?


----------



## dn88

Thomas Tompion said:


> I could say it too.  Don't you think that's because _when I'm back from Texas _is qualifying _next week_ rather than providing a temporal frame for _I can probably get that done for you_?



Exactly.

I just thought of the following line from a song:

_I'll be waiting for that day to arrive, when I'll feel alive... I'll be waiting for that day._

In a similar manner, here "when I'll feel alive" is qualifying the day the speaker anticipates.


----------



## JulianStuart

I _will_ come up with a cogent post , just as soon as I will be able to can.


----------



## morbo

Forero said:


> I would say "As soon as it will stop raining, we can have a picnic" in the same context as "I wish it would stop raining so we can have a picnic", but I hesitate to call _will_ "future tense" in this case, or _would_ "conditional".



So would it be right to assume that you endow the sentences, and especially their modals, with the sense that implies emphatic focus on "the willingness of an event to occur"? (as soon as the rain will finally be so condescending as to stop getting in the way of our picnic.../wish the rain would finally be...)


----------



## Forero

boozer said:


> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _They'll as soon use "agonna" as I will use "fixing to"._
> 
> 
> 
> Is this not the same _will_ as the one in _This door will not open no matter how hard I try to open it?_ I would call it the _will _of willingness simply because I cannot remember its proper name.  If it has one, that is [...]
Click to expand...

I was thinking in terms of something usually called "habitual" _will_, with a meaning both in the present and in the future. It truly is hard to find the words for all the different ways to interpret _will_.

I also think the second _will_ here is required for parallelism with a change of subject.





Thomas Tompion said:


> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [...]And I have no problem saying : _I can probably get that done for you next week, when I'll be back from Texas._
> 
> 
> 
> I could say it too.  Don't you think that's because _when I'm back from Texas _is qualifying _next week_ rather than providing a temporal frame for _I can probably get that done for you_?
> 
> We couldn't say _I can probably get that done for you, when I'll be back from Texas_, could we?
Click to expand...

You may have something here, but I probably would not say "when I am back from Texas" in this context. Without "next week", I would much prefer "when I get back from Texas." I prefer "be back" in the original sentence.





morbo said:


> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say "As soon as it will stop raining, we can have a picnic" in the same context as "I wish it would stop raining so we can have a picnic", but I hesitate to call _will_ "future tense" in this case, or _would_ "conditional".
> 
> 
> 
> So would it be right to assume that you endow the sentences, and especially their modals, with the sense that implies emphatic focus on "the willingness of an event to occur"? (as soon as the rain will finally be so condescending as to stop getting in the way of our picnic.../wish the rain would finally be...)
Click to expand...

That is a possible interpretation of _will_ here, but not the only one. I feel compelled to have _would_ in the _wish_ sentence, in which I take _would_ to be the backshifted form of _will_ after _I wish_. "I wish it stopped raining" does not seem to fit.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> Thomas Tompion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could say it too.  Don't you think that's because _when I'm back from Texas _is qualifying _next week_ rather than providing a temporal frame for _I can probably get that done for you_?
> 
> We couldn't say _I can probably get that done for you, when I'll be back from Texas_, could we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may have something here, but I probably would not say "when I am back from Texas" in this context. Without "next week", I would much prefer "when I get back from Texas." I prefer "be back" in the original sentence.
Click to expand...

In BE I think '_when I am back from Texas' _would be entirely usual, as would your suggested _'when I get back from Texas'_.  What would be very odd would be to use the future tense here.

This use of the present in English to indicate the temporal future in such clauses is counterintuitive to many foreigners, but very ancient in English.  It appears to be standard in Chaucer (circa. 1343 – 1400):  

e.g. General Prologue to The Canterbury Tales, lines 777-780

_And if yow liketh alle by oon assent_ - and if you all agree
_For to stonden at my juggement_, - to abide by my judgement,
_And for to werken as I shal yow seye, _- and do as I say,
_Tomorwe, whan ye riden by the weye,_ - tomorrow, when you ride on your way,

The translation is mine, and I'm sorry to give only the central part of the sentence, but I give the reference, so people can go to the text to see how it fits.  I did not wish too long a quotation.

It's also the norm in Shakespeare: e.g.

Anthony and Cleopatra (I,2)

Iras: _No, you shall paint, when you are old.
_


----------



## lucas-sp

Forero said:


> I was thinking in terms of something usually called "habitual" _will_, with a meaning both in the present and in the future. It truly is hard to find the words for all the different ways to interpret _will_.


Maybe you haven't found an instance of "as soon as" + future tense. You've found an instance of "as soon as" + present tense, even if this present tense is represented by the "will + stem" form. 

I really think we need to get our vocabulary sorted out here, again. As I've said, just because "the future tense" is a name given to the will + stem form, the will + stem form can refer to other times, and other constructions can refer to the future time.

In your examples, I would say "as soon as I'm back from Texas" or "as soon as I get back from Texas," not "as soon as I'll be back from Texas." I agree with TT's point about the "when" clause modifying "next week."

I'm also a little bit uncertain about the whole "as soon as I'll say" sentence because "as soon as" there doesn't mean "once," but instead "as frequently/willingly as." Different meaning, different structure?


----------

