# they'll be having (Modal future)



## Prairie's coward

In Spanish, it is altogether normal to use the future in a present reference meaning supposition:

_No los llames ahora. *Estarán *cenando.
(Suena el timbre) *Será *el cartero._

I'd like to know to what extent these cases of _modal future_ are used in everyday English:

_Don't phone them now - they*'ll be *having dinner.
It'*ll b*e the postman._

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Sprache

This isn't common where I'm from. It may be so in other varieties of English, however.

This is how I would normally say it:
_That *must* be the mailman. / That's probably the mailman._
_Don't call them now. They're probably having dinner._

Let's wait for others' opinions.


----------



## SrRdRaCinG

In the above examples, it would sound ridiculous in English.

Don't call them now- they're probably having dinner.

(doorbell rings)- It must be the mailmain/ it's probably the mailman.

But: Do you want to go with us? Sure, *I'll* go!


----------



## Prairie's coward

SrRdRaCinG said:


> In the above examples, it would sound ridiculous in English.



That's the amazing thing: these example are taken from an english grammar book. I wondered not just if they sounded ridiculous, but if they sounded "English" (perhaps old English?)...


----------



## SrRdRaCinG

A lot of things change over time in regard to language. For example dio (paste tense of dar for él/ella/ud used to be taught dió).

When it comes down to basic communication, sure, you'll be understood. But you will be easily recognized as a learner/foreigner of the language. That's not exactly what you want.

And yes, it may be more common in old English or in Great Britain (I doubt it though), but not in the U.S.A.


----------



## Meyer Wolfsheim

Prairie's coward said:


> In Spanish, it is altogether normal to use the future in a present reference meaning supposition:
> 
> _No los llames ahora. *Estarán *cenando._
> _(Suena el timbre) *Será *el cartero._
> 
> I'd like to know to what extent these cases of _modal future_ are used in everyday English:
> 
> _Don't phone them now - they*'ll be *having dinner._
> _It'*ll b*e the postman._
> 
> Thanks in advance.


 
Unfortunately not in current speech or writing.  In English we are taught that the Spanish future translates itself over sometimes as "the future of probability."  In those cases, the English translation will not be in the same tense, because the future construction "will" is very strong and always refers to things that are going to happen (no probability or chance).  

_No los llames ahora. *Estarán *cenando._
_Don't call them now.  They are probably having dinner.  _

_(Suena el timbre) *Será *el cartero._
_(The doorbell rings) It's probably the postman.  _


----------



## Prairie's coward

Thank you very much for your opinions. I keep wondering why an English grammar book (and a very good one) devotes a paragraph to the use of the future tense for "Present prediction", which besides matches a very spread use of future tense in many languages. My guess was it would be common (or simply an option) in ancient English, or even alive in some of his geographical current varieties. Any more clues?


----------



## Meyer Wolfsheim

Prairie's coward said:


> Thank you very much for your opinions. I keep wondering why an English grammar book (and a very good one) devotes a paragraph to the use of the future tense for "Present prediction", which besides matches a very spread use of future tense in many languages. My guess was it would be common (or simply an option) in ancient English, or even alive in some of his geographical current varieties. Any more clues?


 
That may have been but you will have to research that on your own.  As a native of American English, I can tell you that the future modals, both "will" and especially "shall" are incredibly strong and unwavering.  There is no question of whether an action modified by either occurs, the question is how soon and how important it is that it does.  The third quasi future modal is "to be going to."  In all current usages, there is doubt or "future of probability" in all 3.  

He shall do it=obligatory future.  The action in question must be done at some date in the future, most likely very soon.  Strongest future tense.  

He will do it=accepted/believed future.  The action in question has a 100% chance of taking place and at some point, we don't know exactly.  Second strongest.  

He's going to do it=immediate future.  The action in question takes place very soon; also adds a mood of annoyance or persistence (he'll get around to it).   Weakest but most *immediate*

I hope you understand the difference between the "strength" of a future tense and how soon it happens.  For example, "will" in itself is stronger than "to be going to" when referring strictly to the future, but "to be going to" expresses some urgency and takes place sooner.  "Shall" obviously is just as indefinite as "will" and combines "will" with "must."

The point of this brief examination is to show that in the mind of an English native, a future tense will NEVER have any so called "probability" or uncertainty; to us it is what is ordained to happen.


----------



## obz

Totalmente de acuerdo com lo que han dicho todos. El futuro en inglés no suele tiene nada que ver con suposición, inciertadumbre, o especulación. 
No obstane cuando se prepone una sintaxis de inseguridad, o inciertadumbre, sí se implica. Por ejemplo

"I wonder what will happen to us"
"I have no idea what will become of him"

No se dicen a menudo, y el clave no es que se use el futuro, sino que se usan "preposiciones" de inseguridad (I wonder, I have no idea, etc).  Y tal especulación  pertanece a eventos que aún no han tenido lugare, relacionan estrictamente  al futuro. Lo mismo pasa con el presente en inglés, mientras tanto, contrariamente al inglés el mero uso del futuro puede implicarlo.

"I wonder if he has asked her?"
"Se lo habrá preguntado?"

Espero haber contribuido y haber sido útil.


----------



## Forero

Though not as common as in Spanish, the future of probability is not dead in American English. In fact it is common in some circles, and was very much in vogue a just a half century or so ago. You can even hear it on television, for example on _Kramer_.

I don't know if this applies in Spanish, but in English the meaning is still future (predictive) in the sense of our awareness:

_Don't phone them now - they*'ll be *having dinner. _[If you do phone them in the near future, you will become aware that they are having dinner.]
_ It'*ll b*e the postman._ [We/you will become aware, if we/you should check, that it is the postman.]


----------



## XiaoRoel

No recuerdo en qué hilo escribí ya una reflexión que coincide con bastante de lo aquí dicho.
Creo que, como siempre en estos problemas de valores morfosintácticos, estamos mezclando las cosas. En este caso valores morfosintácticos con un fenómeno de traducción. Me explico.
El inglés, al no tener conjugación (en el sentido del latín o de las lenguas romances), emplea para expresar los valores de los morfemas verbales de tiempo y modo y aspecto, adverbios (también el español los usa como mrfemas libres aspectuales) y los llamados verbos auxiliares temporales y modales, que realmente funcionan como morfemas libres de tiempo y de aspecto (más bien que de modo).
Con la extensión moderna de la enseñanza del español en países de habla anglosajona, ha cundido una falsa impresión al comparar las estructuras de las dos lenguas que el inglés expresa con sus morfemas valores morfosintácticos que, en realidad sólo existen en la traduciión al español, pero no en el original inglés.
Voy a referirme al morfema libre o modal verb (yo lo llamaría morfema verbal aspectual, que creo que es lo que realmente es) must y a su pretendida expresión del futuro en inglés.
Aquí el primer problema es que este futuro de probabilidad, que es como se llama en español es un resto, explicable diacrónicamente, de la formación perifrástica latina _infinitivo + habeo_ que dio origen al futuro que _sólo tardíamente se consolida como tiempo_ en español (en portugués aún se pueden intercalar pronombres átonos entre el infinitivo y el resto de habeo). Este _valor aspectual del futuro de probabilidad_ está muy presente en la lengua desde la época clásica del español, y es de uso coloquial en alternancia (por no hablar de adverbios ni otros elemtos léxicos) con la _perífrasis aspectual haber de + infinitivo_. pero este futuro *no es un tiempo* futuro más que en la forma, nunca en su *significado*, *completamente de aspecto*.
La madre del cordero de toda la confusión de asignar un valor temporal a _must_ consiste en que ese futuro de probabilidad _se traduce_ en inglés con este _verbo modal-aspectual_ que, temporalmente, es un _presente_ _sin pasado_, es un _verdadero morfema libre_ como antes expliqué.
*Must* entre sus valores, _obligación y prohibición_, _necesidad_, _sugerencia_ _o consejo_, cuenta también con el de *probabilidad*.
Creo haberme explicado bien y haber contribuido a aclarar el motivo de ese *pretendido uso como morfema temporal de futuro, valor que no existe en el "futuro" de probabiidad del español.
*


----------



## Forero

_Must_ in this sort of context still refers to obligation, the obligation of logic:

_It must be the postman._ [The ring of the doorbell, the time of day, the remoteness of our neighborhood, etc., obligate us (through logic) to reach the conclusion that it is the postman.]


----------



## obz

Forero said:


> _Must_ in this sort of context still refers to obligation, the obligation of logic:



Only by deduction, not true obligation. 
No one else is expected to come knocking, and it's the normal hour in wich the postman comes. It must be him, not because "he must" in the sense of obligation, but in that of deduction.

You hear the sound of water dropping on the roof, the windows condense, well it must be raining. It's not possible to oblige that it rain.. But by deduction, it certainly must be.


----------



## Forero

What I meant is not that it is obligated but that we are obliged by logic to believe it is raining.

Another example of something similar:

_It is snowing, or rather raining, when the postman arrives.

_This does not mean that it should change snowing to raining, but that we should rather call it raining, not snowing. (It is snowing - no, scratch that: I should rather say it is raining - when the postman arrives.)

_It will be the postman._

This means we will know, if we look, or if we research the situation, that it is the postman. It already is or is not the postman, but although we can "predict" it, we do not actually know it yet, so we say "will be".


----------



## sabretoof

Prairie's coward said:


> _Don't phone them now - they*'ll be *having dinner._




This is probably unusual, but will occur.  As mentioned elsewhere, there's no _probably _in this meaning.




Prairie's coward said:


> _It'*ll b*e the postman._




This sounds strange personally, it would be "That'll be the postman.", which would be quite common.


----------



## sound shift

I use the future for supposition in certain circumstances.

"The postman's coming to the door with a parcel."
"It'll be for next door. They told me they were expecting a parcel, but they're out at the moment."


----------



## arnald

sound shift said:


> I use the future for supposition in certain circumstances.


Me too. Your sentence sounds completely normal and commonplace to me. 



Prairie's coward said:


> That's the amazing thing: these example are taken from an english grammar book. I wondered not just if they sounded ridiculous, but if they sounded "English" (perhaps old English?)...


They don't sound ridiculous at all, but most Americans are not familiar with how people speak English in other parts of the world. As you are from Spain, I guess you are using a British English grammar book, in which case it seems completely normal to me that they included those sentences as examples.

Imagina si un latinoamericano dijera que una frase como "voy *a por* un café" sonara ridícula o como si fuera del español de hace siglos, sin saber que en España en 2010 es una frase de lo más normal...


----------



## Prairie's coward

No sé cómo agradecer todo este inmenso caudal de datos interesantísimos. Creo que ya tengo "el mapa" que necesitaba sobre este uso. Gracias mil a todos.


----------



## weeshus

I will now tread timorously into the discussion. To try to clarify - the following uses are common (and are quite correct) throughout the English Language:

Will may be used in assumptions about present or past actions.

In these cases _will_ can be used with the present infinitve (for non deliberate actions only) or with the continuous or perfect infinitive.

_Ring his home number, He will be at home now_ (I am sure he is at home)
_He will be expecting a call from you _(I am sure he is expecting a call.)
_He will have finished his supper _(I am sure he has finished his supper)
_It is no use asking Carlos, he will not know. _(I am sure he doesn't)

_"Should"_ may also be used for assumptions but is less confident than _will_ 

_Will _can also express assumptions about the future

_He will have plenty of time to get to the Station_
_They will not have any difficulty finding the house_

_Will _+ present infinitive used for assumptions about the future is not restricted to non deliberate actions.

Hope this helps 

Weeshus


----------



## Prairie's coward

weeshus said:


> _Ring his home number, He will be at home now_ (I am sure he is at home)
> _He will be expecting a call from you _(I am sure he is expecting a call.)
> _He will have finished his supper _(I am sure he has finished his supper)
> _It is no use asking Carlos, he will not know. _(I am sure he doesn't)



Esta interpretación me despierta una pregunta inquietante: si cuando digo "He *has *finished his supper" eso significa claramente que '*i am sure* he has finished his supper', y cuando digo _He *will*have finished his supper_ eso significa exactamente igual al parecer, entonces ¿dónde está la diferencia?


----------



## Meyer Wolfsheim

Prairie's coward said:


> Esta interpretación me despierta una pregunta inquietante: si cuando digo "He *has *finished his supper" eso significa claramente que '*i am sure* he has finished his supper', y cuando digo _He *will*have finished his supper_ eso significa exactamente igual al parecer, entonces ¿dónde está la diferencia?


 
La diferencia es que la primera oración significa que él ya se ha comido la cena. La segunda significa que todavía él no se ha comido la cena pero se la habrá comido en el futuro. En inglés, se usa "will+have+participio pasado" para describir acciones que serán completadas cuando una otra acción se completa. 

Así, el ordén:

"He will have finished his supper when I have come back."

1. Voy a volver a casa
2. Cuando he vuelto a casa, la cena habrá sido/será comida. 

Lo siento mucho porque aunque soy nativo en inglés, no estoy seguro si la oración inglésa está bien escrita! Pero creo que tengo razón. A ver lo que dicen otros.


----------



## Prairie's coward

Meyer Wolfsheim said:


> La diferencia es que la primera oración significa que él ya se ha comido la cena. La segunda significa que todavía él no se ha comido la cena pero se la habrá comido en el futuro.



Gracias, Meyer. Pero si es como tú dices, entonces no entiendo tu otro ejemplo:



> _Ring his home number, He will be at home now_ (I am sure he is at home)


¿Si digo _He is_ _at home now_ significa que todavía *sí *está en casa y si digo H_e will be at home now_ significa que todavía (_now_) *no* está en casa?


----------



## Meyer Wolfsheim

Prairie's coward said:


> Gracias, Meyer. Pero si es como tú dices, entonces no entiendo tu otro ejemplo:
> 
> ¿Si digo _He is_ _at home now_ significa que todavía *sí *está en casa y si digo H_e will be at home now_ significa que todavía (_now_) *no* está en casa?


 
¡Sí! ¡Lo entiendes bien!

Pero "will be at home" puede significar también que va a llegar a casa ahora mismo.

Ejemplo:

What time will dad get home? He will be home at 7:00.=Sabemos que no está en casa y a las siete estará allí. 

Pero ahora que he visto lo que ya he escrito, creo que me contredije.  El future en la segunda oración tiene algúna duda de cuando estará en casa pero no hay duda que estará en casa antes o a las siete exactamente.  

PERO

By the time we get home, Dad/he will be home also. =No sabemos si está en casa en este momento, pero cuando llegamos a casa, él está allí también.


----------



## Prairie's coward

Meyer Wolfsheim said:


> ¡Sí! ¡Lo entiendes bien!
> 
> Pero "will be at home" puede significar también que va a llegar a casa ahora mismo.



Vale, pero cuando *no *significa que va a llegar, sino que hablamos de si está en casa o no (como en tus ejemplos), siempre hablamos de lo que está pasando ya, es decir, si está o no está *now*:

Ring his phone number: he is at home *now*
Ring his phone number: he will be at home *now*

En ninguno de los dos casos se habla del futuro, sino de *right now*...


----------



## weeshus

Prairie's coward & Mayer Wolfsheim - Good evening to you both.

My intent was merely to show how "will" may be used to express an *assumption.

* 
 "_Ring his home number, He will be at home now_ "
(I am sure he is at home expresses my supposition, but whilst I may be sure it is not definite that he is at home and thus is different from *He is at home*)

_"He will be expecting a call from you _(I am sure he is expecting a call.)
_He will have finished his supper _(I am sure he has finished his supper)
_It is no use asking Carlos, he will not know. _(I am sure he doesn't)"

The same element of supposition governs all the examples! viz: I do not *know* if he is expecting a call/*has finished* his supper or if Carlos *does not know*. 

I was attempting to explain the assumptive part, thinking to myself "I'm sure they'll understand" Here again I was not certain and actually I was wrong!


I accept that they are not flowing prose by any means, but do feel they help answer the original question that was posted?

Regards
Weeshus


----------



## Prairie's coward

weeshus said:


> Prairie's coward & Mayer Wolfsheim - Good evening to you both.
> 
> My intent was merely to show how "will" may be used to express an *assumption.
> 
> *
> "_Ring his home number, He will be at home now_ "
> (I am sure he is at home expresses my supposition, but whilst I may be sure it is not definite that he is at home and thus is different from *He is at home*)
> 
> _"He will be expecting a call from you _(I am sure he is expecting a call.)
> _He will have finished his supper _(I am sure he has finished his supper)
> _It is no use asking Carlos, he will not know. _(I am sure he doesn't)"
> 
> The same element of supposition governs all the examples! viz: I do not *know* if he is expecting a call/*has finished* his supper or if Carlos *does not know*.
> 
> I was attempting to explain the assumptive part, thinking to myself "I'm sure they'll understand" Here again I was not certain and actually I was wrong!
> 
> 
> I accept that they are not flowing prose by any means, but do feel they help answer the original question that was posted?
> 
> Regards
> Weeshus



As I said, I find all of your contributions extremely helpful. In fact, I find this idea of "assumption" very fortunate in this case when interpreted as 'I can't guarantee the truth of my declaration, but I _assume _it as highly probable (based on my experience, my knowledge about the situation, etc.)'. At least, this is the idea i grasp from the thread. So, thanks again (and please forgive my poor English. I just dare to use it sometimes in order to practice).


----------



## weeshus

Prairie's coward said:


> As I said, I find all of your contributions extremely helpful. In fact, I find this idea of "assumption" very fortunate in this case when interpreted as 'I can't guarantee the truth of my declaration, but I _assume _it as highly probable (based on my experience, my knowledge about the situation, etc.)'. At least, this is the idea i grasp from the thread. So, thanks again (and please forgive my poor English. I just dare to use it sometimes in order to practice)


 "*He who dares, wins!"*

Claro - llo entiende perfectamente 

saludos

Weeshus


----------



## Forero

"He will be at home now" is a prediction. I can be quite confident, even sure, of my prediction, but I do not have direct evidence that he is at home now since I cannot see into his house from my house.

These four statements have four different meanings, though one can likely surmise the same thing from all four:

_He is at home now._ [Simple statement.]
_He is probably at home now._ [Qualified statement.]
_He will be at home now._ [Simple prediction.]
_He will probably be at home now._ [Qualified prediction.]

To me, the predictions refer to a time in the future when direct evidence may become available, direct evidence of where he is right now.

I hope this makes sense.


----------



## Prairie's coward

Forero said:


> "He will be at home now" is a prediction. I can be quite confident, even sure, of my prediction, but I do not have direct evidence that he is at home now since I cannot see into his house from my house.
> 
> These four statements have four different meanings, though one can likely surmise the same thing from all four:
> 
> _He is at home now._ [Simple statement.]
> _He is probably at home now._ [Qualified statement.]
> _He will be at home now._ [Simple prediction.]
> _He will probably be at home now._ [Qualified prediction.]
> 
> To me, the predictions refer to a time in the future when direct evidence may become available, direct evidence of where he is right now.
> 
> I hope this makes sense.



It makes perfect sense to me. In fact, the title of the paragraph in the grammar book i mentioned was about future tense in "present predictions". Perhaps we just have to remove the temporal meaning from the word "prediction" and treat it as scientists do: pre-diction, _id est_, something you say (-diction) before (pre-) experiencing it, regardless the time of reference. In this sense, you can predict the future  (a non experience-based declaration about how the future - unknown by definition- can be) as well as the present (a non experience-based declaration about how -unknown- present can be). I think all the examples so far point at a conclusion like this.


----------



## weeshus

Forero said:


> "He will be at home now" is a prediction _but it could also be classified as an assumption Forero._ I can be quite confident, even sure, of my prediction, but I do not have direct evidence that he is at home now since I cannot see into his house from my house.
> 
> These four statements have four different meanings, though one can likely surmise the same thing from all four:
> 
> _He is at home now._ [Simple statement.]
> _He is probably at home now._ [Qualified statement. _or assumption_]
> _He will be at home now._ [Simple prediction _or assumption_.]
> _He will probably be at home now._ [Qualified prediction _or assumption_.]
> 
> To me, the predictions refer to a time in the future  when direct evidence may become available, direct evidence of where he is right now.
> 
> I hope this makes sense.



It makes excellent sense, but in fact I think that the predictions / assumptions refer to the present! As I said earlier in the thread "Will may be used in assumptions about present or past actions. In these cases _will_ can be used with the present infinitve.

So I think the phrase (eg) _He will be home now_ refers to the present "now" and may be understood to be _"I think that he will be home now"_ Yes of course evidence, proof of the assumption may be available in the future - for example when he answers the telephone!

regards
Weeshus


----------



## FromPA

Forero said:


> Though not as common as in Spanish, the future of probability is not dead in American English. In fact it is common in some circles, and was very much in vogue a just a half century or so ago. You can even hear it on television, for example on _Kramer_.
> 
> I don't know if this applies in Spanish, but in English the meaning is still future (predictive) in the sense of our awareness:
> 
> _Don't phone them now - they*'ll be *having dinner. _[If you do phone them in the near future, you will become aware that they are having dinner.]
> _It'*ll b*e the postman._ [We/you will become aware, if we/you should check, that it is the postman.]


 
Despite all the prior statements absolutely denying its use in English, I'm in complete agreement with Forero.


----------



## XiaoRoel

Están ustedes mezclando lo inmiscible (a nivel de análisis científico) lo morfosintáctico, lo semántico, lo estilístico, con la Lógica que nada tiene que ver con el tema. 
Así nunca llegarán a un acuerdo.


----------

