# future tense



## Antonio3662918

Hello,
In an old Arabic course book of mine I noticed it said you could form the Arabic future tense by adding either 'sa' or 'sawfa' (I think.) It's MSA. I wanted to know if these are interchangeable, and if they are, is either one of them used more often? In spoken MSA, is it normal to pronounce the future particle or would you most likely leave it off? I know in several languages they depend on other words to let the listener know about the future tense instead of changing the verb. (Japanese, etc.) Thank you.
-Antonio


----------



## cherine

Hello Antonio,



Antonio3662918 said:


> I wanted to know if these are interchangeable, and if they are, is either one of them used more often?


They're not really interchangeable, nor is one of them more used than the other. It all depends on the meaning you want to convey.
Maybe this older thread would tell you more about this subject.


> In spoken MSA, is it normal to pronounce the future particle or would you most likely leave it off?


If you leave it off you won't be expressing future. So it should be pronounced.


> I know in several languages they depend on other words to let the listener know about the future tense instead of changing the verb.


In Arabic, even colloquial forms, there should be an indicator of the future, because the verb's form itself is the same as the present المضارع :
aktub أكتب (present tense of I write)
sa-aktub or sawfa-aktub سأكتب، سوف أكتب  (I will write)


P.S. We have also a thread about forming the future in colloquial forms of Arabic, if you're interested.


----------



## elroy

Sometimes, the present tense alone is sufficient to express the future tense in Arabic - but not always.  This is no different from many other languages.


----------



## linguist786

If it helps, سوف is translated in Urdu as "عن قريب" - which is also an Arabic term. It means something like "very soon".


----------



## Abu Rashid

Cherine,



> They're not really interchangeable



Are you sure they are not interchangeable?
If I were to say سوف أذهب إلى البحر or
if I were to say سأذهب إلى البحر 
would I not be conveying the same message? I saw in the thread you linked to that you stated one is far off in the future and one is in the immediate future, but I've never noticed this difference before, and have seen them used interchangeably.


----------



## HKK

My course said this distinction used to exist, but nowadays sawfa- is just more formal.


----------



## cherine

I think HKK answered for me 
Nowadays, many subtilities and nuances in Arabic usage are not sensed and -as a result- not differentiated. sawfa and sa are *not supposed* to be synonyms, but these days they are.
Jalasa and qa3ada, masha and saara, takallama and ta7addatha, raqada and istalqa..... are used interchangeably now, but I think they're supposed to have different connotation, which is not sensed/felt... anymore.


----------



## Sidjanga

elroy said:


> Sometimes, the present tense alone is sufficient to express the future tense in Arabic - but not always.


Would that be the case in this sample dialogue with غداً, for example? (from a textbook I've come across):

 - متى يأتي المدرس الجديد؟
- المدرس الجديد يأتي غداً_


----------



## elroy

Sigianga said:


> متى يأتي المدرس الجديد؟
> - المدرس الجديد يأتي غداً_


 Yup.


----------



## clevermizo

linguist786 said:


> If it helps, سوف is translated in Urdu as "عن قريب" - which is also an Arabic term. It means something like "very soon".



This is not helpful for Arabic, because the meaning is the opposite. سوف as in the thread Cherine has linked above refers to the _distant_ future, not the near future.


----------



## Faylasoof

cherine said:


> ...Nowadays, many subtilities and nuances in Arabic usage are not sensed and -as a result- not differentiated. sawfa and sa are not supposed to be synonyms, but these days they are.


 Hello Cherine, 

This is very interesting because a number of grammar books (including Haywood and Nahmad, which teaches the classical language as well as MSA), doesn’t differentiate between the use of sa and sawfa. In fact, it says the former is a contraction of the latter! 

Other grammar books I have say the same. 



Sigianga said:


> Would that be the case in this sample dialogue with غداً, for example? (from a textbook I've come across):
> 
> - متى يأتي المدرس الجديد؟
> - المدرس الجديد يأتي غداً_


 
Elroy has already confirmed this but I’ll just add a point or two 

As the time frame for the future is given by غداً it means you do not need the future particles س and سوف here.

The imperfect (المضارع) is just unfinished action and for a future connotation we either need to use the prefixes س or سوف or give a future time frame. 

I have, btw, a related question for everyone about the Arabic Future tense. 

Recently I was perusing the book “Standard Arabic” by Eckehard Schulz et al. They give this intriguing example:

<< The particle *قَد*+ *imperfect tense* meaning “perhaps” also denotes a future action or event as possibility:

Perhaps, he will write     قَد یَکتُبُ  >>

What do you all say?

I’m very familiar with the Future Perfect where the use of قَد is optional but nevertheless used, e.g. 

Ja3far would have written
يكون جعفر كتب    =   يكون جعفر قد كتب

But the use of قد  + المضارع  to give the idea of the future tense is, I thought, a little unusual. 

… and I agree with Cleverzimo. The Urdu example of عن قريب above is unhelpful. Not only that, it is actually somewhat misleading as we don’t need to use this when making the future tense, unlike _sa_ and _sawfa_ for Arabic. We have a completely different system of giving the idea of future actions.


----------



## Sidjanga

Faylasoof said:


> As the time frame for the future is given by غداً it means you do not need the future particles س and سوف here.
> 
> The imperfect (المضارع) is just unfinished action and for a future connotation we either need to use the prefixes س or سوف or give a future time frame.


So would it be actually wrong or perhaps stylistically inadvisable to use both indicators, or are the particles سـ and سوف simply optional when there's a temporal adverb that clearly sets the action expressed by the مضارع verb in the future?


----------



## Faylasoof

When the context indicates that the imperfect (المضارع) is referring to future action, as in your example, then there is no need to add the future particles sa / saufa. 

Is it wrong? I don’t know whether this is considered a grammatical sin but it certainly is redundant and so totally unnecessary, as you might guess.

Incidentally, I have just looked through some more resources and the _probable_ future action as denoted by the قَد particle + imperfect (to mean “perhaps / possibly” etc.) is the way to express this kind of action in fus7a. 

It is the sort of literature I’ve been reading (almost entirely historical or descriptive) which might explain why I found it unusual. It isn’t. Just haven’t seen this in a long while!


----------



## Sidjanga

Thank you for your comprehensive answer, Faylasoof.

I just wanted to make sure, as I've been 'corrected' at least once when I said a sentence with غداً and used the verb in مضارع without سـ or سوف, and was told I of course had to use one of these particles - given that I was referring to the future.


----------



## clevermizo

Faylasoof said:


> Hello Cherine,
> 
> This is very interesting because a number of grammar books (including Haywood and Nahmad, which teaches the classical language as well as MSA), doesn’t differentiate between the use of sa and sawfa. In fact, it says the former is a contraction of the latter!
> 
> Other grammar books I have say the same.



I've seen this as well, that سـ is a contraction of سوف. However, curiously, in Maltese _sa_ is still used as a future tense marker, however it appears to be a short form of ساير _(sejjer_ in their orthography)! Which would mean it's akin to the formation of رح in other dialects. 

Perhaps سـ is actually a short version of ساير? It would explain why سـ and سوف are not synonymous (e.g., according to Cherine above). If سـ did come from a verb like سار which has a "going" meaning, it would explain the given distinction between near and distant future.

Just some thoughts. What do the classical grammarians say is the origin of سـَ?


----------



## elroy

Faylasoof said:


> The imperfect (المضارع) is just unfinished action


 I don't want to get into this in this thread (as it would be off-topic, and besides, it's been discussed in previous threads), but I just want to say that not everyone subscribes to this view. 





> << The particle *قَد*+ *imperfect tense* meaning “perhaps” also denotes a future action or event as possibility:
> 
> Perhaps, he will write     قَد یَکتُبُ  >>
> 
> What do you all say?


 That is correct.  When followed by the مضارع, قد means "may" or "might.



Sigianga said:


> So would it be actually wrong or perhaps stylistically inadvisable to use both indicators, or are the particles سـ and سوف simply optional when there's a temporal adverb that clearly sets the action expressed by the مضارع verb in the future?


 It depends on the context.  Even if there is an adverb referring to the future, it is not always redundant to use a future particle.


----------



## Sidjanga

elroy said:


> (...) It depends on the context.  Even if there is an adverb referring to the future, it is not always redundant to use a future particle.


For example?


----------



## Sidjanga

Hi again,





Faylasoof said:


> I’m very familiar with the Future Perfect where the use of قَد is optional but nevertheless used, e.g.
> 
> Ja3far would have written
> يكون جعفر كتب    =   يكون جعفر قد كتب


Unfortunately, I myself can't judge the equivalence between the English and the Arabic sentence yet; but as far as I know, "would have" in English is not the future perfect* but rather the so-called third conditional, which is used to refer to conditions in the *past* that did _not _happen, for which reason the situation expressed is merely hypothetical  (as in your [English] sentence).

Is this what the Arabic يكون جعفر (قد) كتب expresses?

If so, is the same construction also possible with سـ\سوف , really referring to the future?:

سيكون جعفر (قد) كتب = Ja3far *will *have written ?

____________
*although I suppose that what you wanted to express when you said "future" here was probably "the future perfect tense '_will _have' set in the past (-> _would_)"


----------



## clevermizo

Sigianga said:


> If so, is the same construction also possible with سـ\سوف , really referring to the future?:
> 
> سيكون جعفر (قد) كتب = Ja3far *will *have written ?



This is what I'm familiar with, though I almost always see it written with قد.


----------



## Sidjanga

Hi again,

Could someone please give me one or two examples of contexts where it is not redundant to use a future particle even if there is an adverb referring to the future in the same sentence?


----------



## elroy

لدي مشكلة كبيرة وعلي أن أحلها. سأتكلم مع المدير غدًا لعلنا نجد حلاً.

سوف أزور القدس الشهر القادم. هل لديك نصائح بإمكانك إفادتي بها؟

In these examples, not only are the future particles not redundant, but the sentences would actually sound wrong without them.

I'm pretty sure it's the same as in German.  If you use a future particle where you would use _werden_ in German and omit it where you would use the present tense in German, you should be fine in most - if not all - cases.​


----------



## Sidjanga

Thanks!  Now I know in which direction you were thinking. 

It may be similar to German, and considering the respective other language may work as a rule of thumb when deciding whether to use سـ\سوف or _werden_, respectively, together with a future particle; but it doesn't seem to be the exact same.
I don't think I'd normally use _werden _in the context of the second of your example sentences, and the sentence would definitely not sound strange or wrong without it in German.


----------



## Faylasoof

Sigianga said:


> Hi again,Unfortunately, I myself can't judge the equivalence between the English and the Arabic sentence yet; but as far as I know, "would have" in English is not the future perfect* but rather the so-called third conditional, which is used to refer to conditions in the *past*_not _happen that did , for which reason the situation expressed is merely hypothetical  (as in your [English] sentence).



In _reported speech,_ the Future Perfect <will have> becomes the Secondary Future perfect <would have>. That is what I recall from my school grammar! 

 I think you can search for this on the net yourself, but *here *is what I mean. Just scroll down to* “Future perfect to secondary future perfect tense”.*



> Is this what the Arabic يكون جعفر (قد) كتب expresses?
> 
> If so, is the same construction also possible with سـ\سوف , really referring to the future?:
> 
> سيكون جعفر (قد) كتب = Ja3far *will *have written ?



 I don’t recall this! I mean with سـ\سوف. The standard formula being:

یَکونُ قَد فَعَلَ

Although some grammar books say that just  یَکونُ فَعَلَ  conveys the idea of Future Perfect, the use of قَد is frequent.


----------



## kkfilms

Hi
I am very new to this form and seeking your help to understand Arabic. I have seen in this form that many learned persons have very well explained about the formation of the 'future' tense in Arabic. My particular interest is in the use of word قد  in the sentence. I have noted many comments in which it was stated  قد followed by a verb means may or might and refers the action in the future. However, I want to know will it be treated the same if a verb comes first and then قد  i.e. a verb followed by قد 

Thanks


----------



## Tilmeedh

Can a personal pronoun plus an active participle be used in reference to a future event in MSA, as (I believe) is allowed in Arabic dialects? If so, would the event have to take place within the next few days, weeks, or months? Or might it do so even after some months or years?

For example:

'Students are writing/will write their exams at the end of April.'

(الطلّاب حاضرون امتحاناتهم/متقدّمون لامتحاناتهم* في آخر أبريل.)

'Often John tells me, "I'm resuming/I'll resume my `oud lessons as soon as the pandemic is over."'

(كثيرا ما "جان" يقول لي, (إنّني مستأنف في دروسي في العود حالما ينتهي الوباء.)

Thanks in advance.

*According to this thread:

To sit an exam


----------

