# When the meeting ends, we'll be eating.



## JungKim

_When the meeting ends, we'll be eating._
Context 1: The speaker is in the meeting. And the speakers says that they'll eat after the meeting. 
Context 2: The speaker is not in the meeting, and he expects the meeting to end after they start eating and before they finish eating.

Can this sentence be uttered in these two different contexts?


----------



## Glenfarclas

1.  No, because they will not be eating at the time the meeting ends.
2.  No, because the speaker would not use "we" to refer to a group of which he is not part.


----------



## JungKim

Let me give it another try. 


Glenfarclas said:


> 1.  No, because they will not be eating at the time the meeting ends.


As far as I know, the conjunction "when" can mean "just after the time that" as shown in this dictionary, which lists these example sentences for that definition: 





> You can go _when_ the bell rings.
> Call me _when_ you get home.
> Things were better _when_ he got a job.


So, I wonder why the "when" in my example cannot mean "just after the time that".



Glenfarclas said:


> 2.  No, because the speaker would not use "we" to refer to a group of which he is not part.


Maybe I should have explained the second context in more detail.
In this context, I originally intended "we" to refer to a group he _is_ part of. That is, both the speaker and the listener(s) are outside the meeting.


----------



## Glenfarclas

1.  Your use of the progressive ("be eating") in that sentence rules out any sort of future meaning.

2.  Oh, okay.  In that case the tense is correct.


----------



## JungKim

Glenfarclas said:


> 1.  Your use of the progressive ("be eating") in that sentence rules out any sort of future meaning.


Do you mean that the sentence should be _When the meeting ends, we'll eat _in order for it to be used in context 1?


----------



## JulianStuart

JungKim said:


> Do you mean that the sentence should be _When the meeting ends, we'll eat _in order for it to be used in context 1?


----------



## JungKim

JulianStuart said:


>


Does that mean you agree with Glenfarclas?


----------



## JulianStuart

Yes.


----------



## kentix

If you flip no. 1 around it's workable in the right circumstances.

_When the meeting ends, we'll be eating._

If this is spoken as an informational announcement to the other attendees, especially if someone says, "I'm getting hungry.", it would work if it's part of the planned activities to serve a meal after the meeting is over.

It _could_ mean food will magically appear in our mouths at the end of the meeting but the context will rule that out.


----------



## JungKim

kentix said:


> If you flip no. 1 around it's workable in the right circumstances.
> 
> _When the meeting ends, we'll be eating._
> 
> If this is spoken as an informational announcement to the other attendees, especially if someone says, "I'm getting hungry.", it would work if it's part of the planned activities to serve a meal after the meeting is over.



Thanks. That's what I'm talking about.
Also, in your added context having an attendee saying "I'm getting hungry", would it be wrong for the speaker to say the same in response to the attendee when there was no prior plan to serve a meal after the meeting? For example, the speaker might just say "When the meeting ends, we'll be eating" to remind the attendee that the lunchtime is soon coming up after the meeting, or that there'll be enough time left to have lunch even though the meeting will clearly be extended well into the lunchtime. And in an extreme case, the speaker doesn't even care about the eating but simply giving them lip service just to continue the meeting. No?


----------



## kentix

JungKim said:


> would it be wrong for the speaker to say the same in response to the attendee when there was no prior plan to serve a meal after the meeting? For example, the speaker might just say "When the meeting ends, we'll be eating" to remind the attendee that the lunchtime is soon coming up after the meeting


In that case, I would expect him to say "When the meeting ends there will be time for lunch."


----------



## Andygc

kentix said:


> When the meeting ends, we'll be eating


That does not work for me. With the progressive I could readily accept "After the meeting ends ...." But not "When ....".


----------



## JungKim

Andygc said:


> That does not work for me. With the progressive I could readily accept "After the meeting ends ...." But not "When ....".


Not even in kentix's context in post #9?


----------



## Andygc

No, I posted in response to that context.


----------



## JungKim

Andygc said:


> No, I posted in response to that context.


Then would you find this title awkward?
"Here's What You'll Be Eating When Rooster Soup Company Opens Next Week" (from Philadelphia Magazine)


----------



## Andygc

JungKim said:


> Then would you find this title awkward?


Not at all. The opening and the eating go together. When the restaurant opens it will be open - in a state of being open. 

Having lunch and the end of a meeting - that is, eating after the meeting has ended - are separate. The meeting has finished - a fixed event

As post #2


Glenfarclas said:


> 1. No, because they will not be eating at the time the meeting ends.


and posts #4 and #6.


----------



## JungKim

Andygc said:


> Not at all. The opening and the eating go together. When the restaurant opens it will be open - in a state of being open.


You lost me there, Andy.
As far as I know, the verb _open_ as in "When Rooster Soup Company Opens Next Week" is never a stative verb. It's only a dynamic verb.
The fact that the restaurant opens at a certain point in time doesn't entail that it will remain open for an indefinite amount of time, 'cause it can be closed at any time thereafter. The idea that somehow it will remain open is simply a contextual assumption that is never guaranteed by the act of the restaurant opening.



Andygc said:


> Having lunch and the end of a meeting - that is, eating after the meeting has ended - are separate. The meeting has finished - a fixed event


Pretty much the same thing can be said about the magazine's title.
Eating at the restaurant and the Rooster Soup Company opening next week are two separate things. You can eat at the restaurant only after it has opened, which is a fixed event, is it not?



JungKim said:


> As far as I know, the conjunction "when" can mean "just after the time that" as shown in this dictionary, which lists these example sentences for that definition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can go _when_ the bell rings.
> Call me _when_ you get home.
> Things were better _when_ he got a job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I wonder why the "when" in my example cannot mean "just after the time that".
Click to expand...

Last but not least, why nobody answers my question in post #3 about "when" meaning "after"?
As far as I can tell, the "when" in the Philly Magazine clearly means "after", then why the "when" in the OP's first context cannot mean "after"?


----------



## Andygc

It is not "a certain point in time" in the context of the headline you quote. When a restaurant opens, it opens for business. It goes from the state of being not open for business to the state of being open for business. The restaurant is open for an indefinite period of time - until it goes bust, until it is closed down by the health department, until the chef resigns, until the owner decides to retire. That is not the same meaning of 'open' as in "the restaurant opens between 7 and 11 pm". For that reason:


JungKim said:


> Eating at the restaurant and the Rooster Soup Company opening next week are two separate things.


No, they are not.

Your examples are the same as the meeting and eating.
You can go when the bell rings.  You can be going when the bell rings. 
Call me when you get home.  Call me when you are getting home. 
When the meeting ends, we'll eat .  When the meeting ends, we'll be eating . 



JungKim said:


> Last but not least, why nobody answers my question in post #3 about "when" meaning "after"?


We did. It is the use of the progressive form that prevents that meaning. There may be exceptions, but that seems a reasonable general principle.


----------



## JungKim

It's never easy to get my idea across in English or perhaps in any language.  Let me give it yet another and hopefully a final shot.
First things first. Let's get this dynamic and stative verb thing over and done with.


JungKim said:


> As far as I know, the verb _open_ as in "When Rooster Soup Company Opens Next Week" is never a stative verb. It's only a dynamic verb.


I now realize that I should have known better. Because the verb _open_ can indeed be stative!  (I came to know this thanks to you.)


Andygc said:


> "the restaurant opens between 7 and 11 pm".


In this example, the verb _open_ does mean it stays open between 7 and 11 pm. So it's clearly a stative verb.

On the other hand, the verb _open_ in the Philly Magazine is clearly dynamic. "Rooster Soup Company opens next week" does not mean that the company stays open during _next week_. _Next week_ is just a rough time span only at one point of which the company opens (dynamic) its business. So, "next week" doesn't mean the whole week but it means the following opening date within _next week_:


> Rooster Soup Company [...] is going to be opening (dynamic) to the public *on January 23* at 1526 Sansom Street. (From the same article)


Which, of course, doesn't mean either that it opens (stative) the whole day on January 23. It means that it opens (dynamic) at whatever their regular opening time (for example at 7 p.m.) of January 23.

So, yes, you're right that Pilly Magazine's title's "open" is not the same meaning of 'open' as in "the restaurant opens between 7 and 11 pm", because the former is a dynamic verb whereas the latter is a stative verb, not because of this reason you mentioned:


Andygc said:


> It is not "a certain point in time" in the context of the headline you quote. When a restaurant opens, it opens for business. It goes from the state of being not open for business to the state of being open for business. The restaurant is open for an indefinite period of time - until it goes bust, until it is closed down by the health department, until the chef resigns, until the owner decides to retire.



Let me get back to my idea that I thought was "never easy" to get across:


JungKim said:


> The fact that the restaurant opens at a certain point in time doesn't entail that it will remain open for an indefinite amount of time, 'cause it can be closed at any time thereafter. The idea that somehow it will remain open is simply a contextual assumption that is never guaranteed by the act of the restaurant opening.


By all of which I only tried to get across the idea that the verb _open_ in the magazine's title is dynamic, as opposed to stative. But my failing to get that simple idea across somehow let you go off on a tangent and say this:


Andygc said:


> When a restaurant *opens *(dynamic), it *opens *(dynamic or stative?) for business. It *goes *(dynamic) from the state of being not open for business to the state of being open for business. The restaurant *is open* (stative) for an indefinite period of time - until it goes bust, until it is closed down by the health department, until the chef resigns, until the owner decides to retire.


 As marked here, your argument here has nothing to do with distinguishing the dynamic and stative meaning of the verb.

Now I've gotten this dynamic and stative verb thing out of the way, let me focus on the real issue: whether, as you claim, the progressive form prevents "when" from meaning "after".


Andygc said:


> JungKim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last but not least, why nobody answers my question in post #3 about "when" meaning "after"?
> 
> 
> 
> We did. It is the use of the progressive form that prevents that meaning. There may be exceptions, but that seems a reasonable general principle.
Click to expand...


Specifically, you said:


Andygc said:


> You can go when the bell rings.  You can be going when the bell rings.
> Call me when you get home.  Call me when you are getting home.
> When the meeting ends, we'll eat .  When the meeting ends, we'll be eating .



I don't know what you mean by  here.

Of these three, the last one is the OP's question itself. And the second one has the progressive form in the when clause so I'm not sure how this is directly related to the OP's question. The first one uses 'can' instead of 'will', so I have the same kind of reservation about this one.

The sentence quoted earlier in this post from the Philly Magazine article that mentions the opening date is followed by this sentence:


> And *when it does, it will be operating in collaboration with Broad Street Ministry’s Hospitality Collaborative* (which is something that we’ve known about since the start) and that “it will become the first for-profit restaurant of its kind to donate 100% of its profits to a non-profit organization” (which we didn’t).


Here, _*does*_ means "opens", which is dynamic because it refers to the "open" in "is going to be opening to the public". Therefore, _*when*_ in this sentence has to mean "after". And you can see that the main clause has the progressive form _*will be operating*_. Apparently, the use of progressive form doesn't prevent "when" from meaning "after".

What's going on??


----------



## JulianStuart

( "I don't know what you mean by  here". Usually a thumbs down means disapproval - here it can mean either incorrect or not idiomatic.  Either, way it is not approved of)


----------



## Andygc

"When it does." Does what? Become open for business. So "when" doesn't mean "after". It means "at the time that it is in a state of being open for business".
"And when it does become open for business, it will be operating in collaboration with Broad Street Ministry’s Hospitality Collaborative"

The 'after' meaning requires event one followed by event two. Something continuous - be eating - isn't an event.

Call me (event two) when you get home (event one).

You are right about my having the continuous verb in the relative clause. That's not an example I should have used because 'call me' is an imperative. (Be calling me when you get home  = make sure you have your phone to your ear when you arrive home)


----------



## siares

Is the progressive also odd when using it meaning 'busy doing X'?
- John hasn't called all this time, I hope he does as soon as he's back.
- When he returns, he'll be (busy) unpacking and catching up with work, give him some time for that.
or
- When his trip is over, he'll be (busy) unpacking and catching up with work, give him some time for that.

This is different to OP, but in in line with the restaurant example (where second action follows up from the first).

Thank you.


----------



## Andygc

It sounds odd to me, but I would say "When he gets back he'll be busy (doing whatever)". If I used "returns" it would become "When he returns, he'll need to/have to unpack and catch up with work, give him some time for that." 

The difficulty is, I think, that although the words do not appear to have a stative meaning, the unconscious understanding (for me) is that we are dealing with a state. "When he returns he'll be unpacking" gives a sense that he'll have his bags open as he enters the house. "When he gets back" allows the underlying meaning of "when he is in a state of being back". I don't know if others perceive this in that way, but that is, I think, why the continuous forms don't work here for me.


----------



## siares

Thank you, andygc.


Andygc said:


> gives a sense that he'll have his bags open as he enters the house


How well would it work to add a time frame which competes with 'at the same time as' reading of 'when'?
_When he returns, he'll be unpacking for days._


----------



## JungKim

Andygc said:


> Something continuous - be eating - isn't an event.


What do you mean something continuous (_be eating_) isn't an event?


----------



## Andygc

An event - I ate, the chicken crossed the road, I cry, I will walk. It's a complete action.
Not an event - I was eating, the chicken was crossing the road, I am crying, I will be walking. It's an action that is progressing at the time of reference.



siares said:


> Thank you, andygc.
> How well would it work to add a time frame which competes with 'at the same time as' reading of 'when'?
> _When he returns, he'll be unpacking for days._


It still doesn't work for me. It's not something I would say.


----------



## JungKim

Andygc said:


> An event - I ate, the chicken crossed the road, I cry, I will walk. It's a complete action.
> Not an event - I was eating, the chicken was crossing the road, I am crying, I will be walking. It's an action that is progressing at the time of reference.


Then, I intended the OP's _we'll be eating_ in context 1 to be not an action in progress but a complete action.
In the OP's context 2, _we'll be eating_ is an action in progress.


----------



## Andygc

But you didn't achieve your intention, which is why almost all of the English speakers' responses were as post #2. "We will be eating" is continuous and, thus, stative. "We will eat" is not.


----------



## JungKim

CGEL by Pullum talks about this sentence (p 171-2):
_When the meeting ends we'll be flying to Bonn._
CGEL says this sentence is ambiguous and says:


> On the progressive aspectuality reading, we will already be flying to Bonn when the meeting ends; on the 'already decided future' interpretation, the _when_ adjunct says when we will leave. The first is imperfective, with reference to a mid-interval; the second is perfective, just as in the non-progressive _we'll fly_, which, however, suggests that the decision is being made now. This use is particularly common with _will_, but it is also found with, for example, the idiom _be going_, as in _Are you going to be helping them again this year?_ (where the non-progressive might again be construed as a request.)


I guess CGEL's perfective is what you call an event or a complete action, and that CGEL's imperfective is what you call "an action that is progressing at the time of reference". Is my guess right? Or am I citing something different here?

If my guess is right, what do you think of CGEL's _flying to Bonn_ sentence and their analysis?


----------



## Andygc

I don't accept 





> which, however, suggests that the decision is being made now.


That interpretation requires appropriate context. Trying to deduce meaning from a context-free, isolated sentence is as much a problem in this extract from CEGL as it is in this forum. As an isolated sentence I see it as factual - a programme that has already been decided - the timetable for the meeting.

The "are you going" sentence is not comparable; the point at issue in this thread is the meaning of "when". I can't see why this is being raised (by CEGL) in a discussion of a "when" sentence.

I don't find the flying sentence ambiguous; I find it unusable because it can only have the "already flying" meaning for me. I need "After the meeting ends we'll be flying ...". That may be just me, or just a few people. It might help if others who have already posted here added their thoughts, especially as there does not seem to be unanimity.


----------



## Loob

I think JungKim' sentence would be relatively unremarkable if the sequence of clauses was reversed:
_We'll be eating when the meeting ends*._
This would work fairly readily, I think, as a response to a question like_ When are we going to be eating?
_
The sentence as originally written wouldn't work as a response to the blue question.  But it would work, I think, as a response to something like this red one:
_Will you be getting a taxi to the station straight after the meeting?
No  -  when the meeting ends*, we'll be eating.

_________
(* I'd probably use "finishes" rather than "ends".)


----------



## JungKim

Andygc said:


> I don't accept That interpretation requires appropriate context. Trying to deduce meaning from a context-free, isolated sentence is as much a problem in this extract from CEGL as it is in this forum. As an isolated sentence I see it as factual - a programme that has already been decided - the timetable for the meeting.


That's interesting. Andy, do you not use "will be + V-ing" form as frequently as other native speakers when you don't even mean "will be in the middle of V-ing"? 

In my limited exposure to English, I'd say like the vast majority of "will be + V-ing" lacks the progressive aspectual meaning, especially in an informal setting. If you construe "will + V" as the already decided future, what's the difference between this and the former form?



Andygc said:


> The "are you going" sentence is not comparable; the point at issue in this thread is the meaning of "when". I can't see why this is being raised (by CEGL) in a discussion of a "when" sentence.


I believe that the meaning of "when" is a red herring in the OP's discussion.
I know, I've raised the issue in post #3 solely in response to Glenfarclas's post:


Glenfarclas said:


> 1.  No, because they will not be eating *at the time* the meeting ends.



The "just after the time that" meaning is discernible not just with "when" but other time-related words.
For example, I think that you can say, "I'll be going now", before you actually start moving any part of your body. Here, "now" doesn't mean "at the time of speaking" but it means "just after the time of speaking". 

So, I guess this added "just after" meaning is simply emanating from an inaccurate nature of English (and for that matter most natural languages).



Andygc said:


> I don't find the flying sentence ambiguous; I find it unusable because it can only have the "already flying" meaning for me. I need "After the meeting ends we'll be flying ...". That may be just me, or just a few people. It might help if others who have already posted here added their thoughts, especially as there does not seem to be unanimity.


Then, how about this sentence?
_When the meeting ends, I'll be leaving._


----------



## Andygc

JungKim said:


> That's interesting. Andy, do you not use "will be + V-ing" form as frequently as other native speakers when you don't even mean "will be in the middle of V-ing"?


I don't understand what you mean by that question. I commonly use 'will be + V-ing' to express the future. But I don't use it after 'when' as in 'when the meeting ends'. "When the meeting is over I'll be going to lunch" is unremarkable.



JungKim said:


> Then, how about this sentence?
> _When the meeting ends, I'll be leaving._


I can't think of a reason to say it - because of the inversion, the construction and the vocabulary. I'll be leaving as soon as the meeting ends. I'll leave when the meeting ends. 



JungKim said:


> I believe that the meaning of "when" is a red herring in the OP's discussion.


I cannot agree. It is the use of 'when' that causes the problem - as Glenfarclas and others have said. It doesn't mean 'after' to me in this specific context.



Loob said:


> _We'll be eating when the meeting ends*._
> This would work fairly readily, I think, as a response to a question like_ When are we going to be eating?_


I could be happy with that, but *only *if Loob had made the change she suggested "We'll be eating when the meeting *finishes*". Why? I think it is because the word 'finishes' in this context seems to have a somewhat progressive meaning, whereas an 'end' is abruptly finite. I wonder if Loob can analyse why she prefers 'finishes'.

As it happens I have been to many 3-day meetings running from noon on day 1 to noon on day 3 where the topic of lunch on the final day has been of universal interest, which is one reason I don't have to think very hard about the sentences in the OP.


----------



## JungKim

Andygc said:


> I don't understand what you mean by that question. I commonly use 'will be + V-ing' to express the future. But I don't use it after 'when' as in 'when the meeting ends'. "When the meeting is over I'll be going to lunch" is unremarkable.


Let's just forget the 'when'. When you use "will be + V-ing" to express the future, I think more often than not you're not actually talking about the future act being in progress. For example, when you say, "I'll be leaving now" (before you even start moving any part of your body), it's very unlikely that you're referring to your future action of leaving in progress. You might as well say "I'll leave now" to roughly mean the same thing, but you subconsciously or even habitually can say "I'll be leaving now". 

In this case, by "I'll be leaving" you don't even mean "I'll be in the middle of leaving". That is, your "be leaving" is not really CGEL's "imperfective" or your "an action that is progressing at the time of reference", but really CGEL's "perfective" or your "a complete action or an event".

Now, how is it possible to take this perfective "be + V-ing" and say that it can't be used with the when clause, simply because the perfective "be + V-ing" is all of a sudden "imperfective" or "a non-event" or "an action that is progressing at the time of reference"?


----------



## Andygc

JungKim said:


> Let's just forget the 'when'


That would be to forget the whole thread. We've been discussing the relationship between "When the meeting ends" and such clauses as "we'll be eating" and "we'll be leaving". 


JungKim said:


> Now, how is it possible to take this perfective "be + V-ing" and say that it can't be used with the when clause,


I didn't say that. I said that the specific context using the verb 'ends' is the obstacle. There are other verbs which are equally abruptly finite.


Glenfarclas said:


> 1. Your use of the progressive ("be eating") *in that sentence *rules out any sort of future meaning.





Loob said:


> (* I'd probably use "finishes" rather than "ends".)





Andygc said:


> I could be happy with that, but *only *if Loob had made the change she suggested "We'll be eating when the meeting *finishes*".


That last point, for me, not only needs the additional context Loob introduced, but also a verb which is less 'abrupt'.

I've explained my response to the question as best I can, but I don't see that I can take it any further. I'm sorry.


----------



## JulianStuart

When your discussion ends, I will be sunbathing on the riviera.


----------



## Phoebe1200

JulianStuart said:


> When your discussion ends, I will be sunbathing on the riviera.


And is this sentence correct, idiomatic to use?


----------



## JulianStuart

I will be sunbathing on the riviera tomorrow.  For me (and andy above) it is the standard way to express a future continuous activity.  When this discussion ends (i.e. at that specific future point in time) I will (already) be (in the process of) sunbathing.

(It may be cloudy now but) When the meeting ends, the sun will be shining.


----------



## Phoebe1200

JulianStuart said:


> I will be sunbathing on the riviera tomorrow.  For me (and andy above) it is the standard way to express a future continuous activity.  When this discussion ends (i.e. at that specific future point in time) I will (already) be (in the process of) sunbathing.
> 
> When the meeting ends, the sun will be shining.


Thank you very much. I understand.


----------



## siares

Thank you, Andygc.


Andygc said:


> ...the specific context using the verb 'ends' is the obstacle.


So for futurity meaning, abrupt verbs don't act as well as less abrupt ones;
How is it for 'at the same time' meaning - do 'finish' and 'end' act differently, do the following mean slightly different things?

_When your discussion ends, I will be sunbathing on the riviera.
When your discussion finishes, I will be sunbathing on the riviera._

Thank you.


----------



## Andygc

No difference at all there. The 'when' clause could be continuous too "when the meeting is ending / finishing, I'll be sunbathing".


----------



## siares

Thank you, Andygc. Julian Stuart, I trust you are still sunbathing!


----------

