# Present simple for actions happening at the moment of speaking



## Poland91pl

Hey I wanted to learn something about using simple present tense for actions happening at the moment. ESL students have always been taught that when something is happening right now we always use present continuous tense except when talking about emotions etc. ( verbs like love hate) while I encountered it many times that natives use simple present sometimes when talking about actions happening right now like
A: how old are you?
B: why do u ask ?

Or I choose this one ( instead of I'm choosing this one )
I kind of found out that these are called single actions but what about

*I'm calling your mum but she's not answering or doesn't answer ( I only call/ am calling  her once ? Which form?*
Why do people say do you get it now instead of are you gettiNG it now ? When it comes to understanding

_<Font size edited by moderator (Florentia52)>_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

*She's not answering* a single call probably means that the phone has rung several times but she hasn't picked it up.

*She doesn't answer* suggests that she's been rung several times without her answering.


----------



## Poland91pl

Thomas Tompion said:


> *She's not answering* a single call probably means that the phone has rung several times but she hasn't picked it up.
> 
> *She doesn't answer* suggests that she's been rung several times without her answering.


Are you sure it is not the other way round?


----------



## PaulQ

Poland91pl said:


> I'm calling your mum but she's not answering or doesn't answer ( I only call/ am calling her once ? Which form?


The "doesn't answer" is rather strange in direct conversation - but the verb form depends on what you want to say and when you are saying it.

A: "I just saw you phoning someone; who was it?"
B: "I'm calling your mum to tell her about your accident but she's not answering. I'll hang up and call her again in a minute."

A: "Oooowww! Look, I've cut myself - call my mum!"
B: [Goes to the telephone... B waits] ... I'm calling your mum but she's not answering." [Puts the phone down.]
C [to A]: "What did B say?"
B: "He said that he's called my mum but she's didn't answer."


----------



## Poland91pl

Thanks. What about why do you ask and why are you asking?

_<Edited by moderator to write words out in full>_


----------



## PaulQ

1. Please do not use "*u*" when you mean "*you*" - it is substandard and other readers might think that it is OK. 

The simple form of the verb difficers from the continuous form of the verb in all tenses and voices.
The simple form refers to one action as a single concept.
The continuous form indicates an action over a period of time - it indicates spending time doing something or to be in the process of doing (verbing) an action.
It's great advantage is the implied duration - this allows other actions to take place at the same time.


----------



## Poland91pl

How I get it is "why are you asking" meaning that the person is like how old are you? What is your age? And so on and I could say why are you asking?
And "why do you ask" when someone asks me one questions once only.

I don't know about choosing. Well I've seen it in a video when the singer, Beyonce who is American, we're on the stage and she was to choose 1 man out of the audience and she said "hmmm hmm i chooooose"

And what about "do you get it now?" After someone's just explained something to someone . Still it's now at the end but the tense is simple present do you have any ideas why it's like that?

_<Edited by moderator (Florentia52) to add quotation marks and remove texting shorthand>_


----------



## Poland91pl

PaulQ said:


> 1. Please do not use "*u*" when you mean "*you*" - it is substandard and other readers might think that it is OK.
> 
> The simple form of the verb difficers from the continuous form of the verb in all tenses and voices.
> The simple form refers to one action as a single concept.
> The continuous form indicates an action over a period of time - it indicates spending time doing something or to be in the process of doing (verbing) an action.
> It's great advantage is the implied duration - this allows other actions to take place at the same time.


Thanks for your reply. OK I'll try not to use *u*. As to your reply isn't picking up or answering a phone a single action like just mhm you just have to touch /press one button. You press it and that's it same as choosing -you choose it and it's over


----------



## PaulQ

Poland91pl said:


> As to your reply isn't picking up or answering a phone a single action like just mhm you just have to touch /press one button. You press it and that's it same as choosing -you choose it and it's over


Unfortunately, it is not as easy as that. All those actions took some time - do you want to express that time, or do you want merely to mention that you did something?

It is not a question of how long something takes - it is a question of how you intend to express the action; how much emphasis you wish to give and the information that you want to impart:

{I walked home} and I saw John. Here there is no mention of any time or duration of the walk. We do not know if you saw John during or after the walk (or even if the two events are linked at all.)
{I was walking home} and I saw John. Here, the listener gathers an idea that the walk takes some time and, *during that time*, you saw John.

I haven't addressed the "answering the phone" as I honestly do not thing "but she doesn't answer the phone" is part of a natural conversation, given the context.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Poland91pl said:


> Are you sure it is not the other way round?


Yes, quite sure.  I don't answer carelessly.


----------



## SevenDays

Poland91pl said:


> Hey I wanted to learn something about using simple present tense for actions happening at the moment. ESL students have always been taught that when something is happening right now we always use present continuous tense except when talking about emotions etc. ( verbs like love hate) while I encountered it many times that natives use simple present sometimes when talking about actions happening right now like
> A: how old are you?
> B: why do u ask ?
> 
> Or I choose this one ( instead of I'm choosing this one )
> I kind of found out that these are called single actions but what about
> 
> *I'm calling your mum but she's not answering or doesn't answer ( I only call/ am calling  her once ? Which form?*
> Why do people say do you get it now instead of are you gettiNG it now ? When it comes to understanding
> 
> _<Font size edited by moderator (Florentia52)>_



ESL students are taught that to avoid ambiguity, given that the simple past is also used for habitual actions. So, the difference between _*I sing*_ and _*I am singing*_ is that "I sing" can be interpreted as either something _happening now_ or something that is _habitual_; it is therefore ambiguous. By contrast, "I am singing" only has one interpretation: the "singing" is happening now. The problem is that ESL teachers and grammar books don't go beyond that. They like to keep things simple. As is often the case, context matters.

_I'm *calling* your mum but she's not *answering*_ makes it clear that both actions ("calling" and "not answering") are happening now, in the present. It so happens that "I'm calling your mum" at the start puts the whole sentence in the "now" time frame, so we don't need to repeat the continuous form in the second part of the sentence: _I'm *calling *your mum but she doesn't *answer*_. Both ways work, so you can use either one (though each has its own negation: _not_ vs. _don't_). The problem with "I call your mum" is that it could be interpreted as something habitual, and it therefore introduces ambiguity: it seems to refer to "all the time" and not just "now."

What happens in "Why do you ask?" is that the very act of speaking (the "speech act") represents "happening now" so there's no need to use the continuous form (though nothing stops you from saying, "Why are you asking?"). Similarly, the very act of "making a selection" means "now," so I can simply say "I choose this one." Again, there's nothing linguistically wrong with "I'm choosing this one," though it's a way of speaking which draws more attention to what you are doing.

The ESL rule is simplistic, but useful as a starting point.


----------



## Poland91pl

SevenDays said:


> ESL students are taught that to avoid ambiguity, given that the simple past is also used for habitual actions. So, the difference between _*I sing*_ and _*I am singing*_ is that "I sing" can be interpreted as either something _happening now_ or something that is _habitual_; it is therefore ambiguous. By contrast, "I am singing" only has one interpretation: the "singing" is happening now. The problem is that ESL teachers and grammar books don't go beyond that. They like to keep things simple. As is often the case, context matters.
> 
> _I'm *calling* your mum but she's not *answering*_ makes it clear that both actions ("calling" and "not answering") are happening now, in the present. It so happens that "I'm calling your mum" at the start puts the whole sentence in the "now" time frame, so we don't need to repeat the continuous form in the second part of the sentence: _I'm *calling *your mum but she doesn't *answer*_. Both ways work, so you can use either one (though each has its own negation: _not_ vs. _don't_). The problem with "I call your mum" is that it could be interpreted as something habitual, and it therefore introduces ambiguity: it seems to refer to "all the time" and not just "now."
> 
> What happens in "Why do you ask?" is that the very act of speaking (the "speech act") represents "happening now" so there's no need to use the continuous form (though nothing stops you from saying, "Why are you asking?"). Similarly, the very act of "making a selection" means "now," so I can simply say "I choose this one." Again, there's nothing linguistically wrong with "I'm choosing this one," though it's a way of speaking which draws more attention to what you are doing.
> 
> The ESL rule is simplistic, but useful as a starting point.


Thank you very much. I get it now ( not ^getting )


----------



## Thomas Tompion

SevenDays said:


> _I'm *calling *your mum but she doesn't *answer*_.


You say this is idiomatic, but I can't think of circumstances in which I'd say it.

I don't agree that the simple present is justified by the time-frame set by the use of the continuous present earlier - *she doesn't answer *means that I've found, on repeated occasions, that she is unwilling to answer: it's talking about a repeated action.

*She's not answering* can be talking about repeated action over a short period in the recent past, and is what you need to match the earlier continuous present - *I've rung her several times recently but she's not answering* suggests that she won't pick up the phone; the *I've rung her several times* tells us that we are talking about time in the recent past leading up to the present.

Notice the difference between *I'm calling your mum but she doesn't answer*, and *I have been calling your mum but she doesn't answer*.


----------



## wandle

Poland91pl said:


> simple present tense for actions happening at the moment.


  There are three forms of the present tense, simple, emphatic and continuous: for example: I call, I do call, I am calling.

Please note that each form of the present tense is, as the name indicates, present. Therefore all three forms can be used to express actions or states going on at the time of speaking.


----------



## Poland91pl

wandle said:


> There are three forms of the present tense, simple, emphatic and continuous: for example: I call, I do call, I am calling.
> 
> Please note that each form of the present tense is, as the name indicates, present. Therefore all three forms can be used to express actions or states going on at the time of speaking.


Now I am a bit confused. Thomas said that I'm calling your mum and she doesn't answer is wrong. Hence *why do u ask me that ?* is wrong either. You say it's OK to use it as it is still presence. 
OK I'll stick to your version as you're a native speaker and Thomas is not. I am more interested in how natives speak and what they would use in a certain situations.


----------



## Andygc

Poland91pl said:


> OK I'll stick to your version as you're a native speaker and Thomas is not.


 Yes he is.


Poland91pl said:


> Thomas said that "I'm calling your mum and she doesn't answer" is wrong.


I agree with Thomas. I certainly wouldn't say that.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Poland91pl said:


> Now I am a bit confused. Thomas said that I'm calling your mum and she doesn't answer is wrong. Hence *why do YOU ask me that ?* is wrong either. You say it's OK to use it as it is still presence.
> OK I'll stick to your version as you're a native speaker and Thomas is not. I am more interested in how natives speak and what they would use in a certain situations.


This is the first time, I think, that it's been said that I'm not a native speaker.

There's nothing wrong with *Why do you ask me that?* in the right circumstances.  As you don't outline the circumstances I can't call it wrong.

I think the use of these present tenses is difficult for a non-native to pick up.

On the whole the simple present suggests repeated action or habitual action, and the continuous present action which is happening right now, or in the very recent past.

I'm pleased to see that Andy agrees with me.  He's very reliable, though he doesn't need me to confirm this.  We've both been answering here for many years.


----------



## velisarius

_I'm calling your mum. Why doesn't she answer?/Why isn't she answering?
_
These both sound fine to me.

I don't really find _I'm calling your mum, but she doesn't answer _unidiomatic.

I think it's similar to this:
_I'm talking to you, but you don't respond. Why not?_


----------



## Andygc

velisarius said:


> _I'm calling your mum. Why doesn't she answer?/Why isn't she answering?
> _
> These both sound fine to me.


And to me.


velisarius said:


> I don't really find _I'm calling your mum, but she doesn't answer _unidiomatic.


Interesting - it sounds dreadful to me - "I'm calling your mum, but she's not answering"


----------



## Thomas Tompion

It seems to me it might help if I try to explain the difference between *Why do you ask me that? *and *Why are you asking me that?
*
1.  In many circumstances both are possible, but there are differences in register.

2.  *Why are you asking me that? *is the sort of thing one says in a line of similar questions; the slight suggestion is that you are being asked a series of questions.

3.  *Why do you ask me that?* is more emphatic often, and can even be aggressive, suggesting that the question may perhaps be improper in the circumstances.

I agree with what Andy says in #19 above.


----------



## wandle

velisarius said:


> _I'm calling your mum. Why doesn't she answer?/Why isn't she answering?_
> These both sound fine to me.


Agreed.


Poland91pl said:


> she's not answering or doesn't answer


We can see a difference in meaning. 'She isn't answering' simply reports the fact. 'She doesn't answer' indicates that the speaker suspects she is deliberately not answering.
We can go a stage further. 'She won't answer' (still referring to the present, i.e 'she is unwilling to answer') means the speaker is sure that she is deliberately not answering.


----------



## Andygc

wandle said:


> 'She doesn't answer' indicates that the speaker suspects she is deliberately not answering.


Not to me. I cannot imagine ever using that statement. I would say "she's not answering". "She doesn't answer" might find its way into an Agatha Christie novel, I suppose, but not into the English I speak or expect to hear. 

If I was sure that she would deliberately not answer the phone I wouldn't call her, so I can't see this sentence ever following "I'm calling your mum".

Change the context, of course, and these sentences make sense.
"Don't call your mum. She doesn't answer." - her habit.
"Don't call your mum. She won't answer." - she has no willingness to answer - not necessarily a habit.
But those meanings have already been covered.


----------



## wandle

Andygc said:


> If I was sure that she would deliberately not answer the phone


That scenario has not been suggested and does not seem relevant.

If you believe that the person is in reach or hearing of the phone, and it has been ringing for some time, then the failure to answer becomes equivalent to a repeated action.
The person has to make repeated decisions not to answer (or else is continually hindered from answering).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Andygc said:


> If I was sure that she would deliberately not answer the phone I wouldn't call her, so I can't see this sentence ever following "I'm calling your mum".


Good, Andy.  Thank you for making this point.

Once you know she doesn't answer it's absurd to say that you are ringing her, unless you are doing it just to be irritating.
*
I ring her occasionally but she doesn't answer* is fine, I'm sure you'll agree.


----------



## se16teddy

I think that this thread started off discussing the special use of the simple present to comment on action or speech, and has drifted off to discuss the very different use of the simple present of recurrent or permanent things.

The extent to which different people use the commentating simple present is *very *variable. I suspect that most people don't use it at all.

I think that it would be unusual to say "she doesn't answer" in the circumstances of #1. It would not normally constitute a commentary on what is happening: it is normally an analysis of what has happened so far. It might be different if it were a true commentary: _She doesn't answer .... She doesn't answer ... She answers! _It might also be different if it were an action, rather than a state of inaction.

In contrast,_ Why do you say that?_ is effectively commenting on a script, the imagined transcript of the earlier part of the conversation. It is like _Hamlet* says* "To be or not to be, that is the question"._


----------



## Andygc

Andygc said:


> If I was sure that she would deliberately not answer the phone





wandle said:


> That scenario has not been suggested and does not seem relevant.


Do you ever read your own posts?


wandle said:


> We can go a stage further. 'She won't answer' (still referring to the present, i.e 'she is unwilling to answer') means the speaker is sure that she is deliberately not answering.





Thomas Tompion said:


> *I ring her occasionally but she doesn't answer* is fine, I'm sure you'll agree.


Of course.



wandle said:


> then the failure to answer becomes equivalent to a repeated action.
> The person has to make repeated decisions not to answer


Don't be ridiculous.


----------



## velisarius

wandle said:


> If you believe that the person is in reach or hearing of the phone, and it has been ringing for some time, then the failure to answer becomes equivalent to a repeated action.
> The person has to make repeated decisions not to answer (or else is continually hindered from answering).



That makes a lot of sense to me, which is strange because I don't usually agree with wandle.



> I think it's similar to this:
> _I'm talking to you, but you don't respond._


 Here too, the other person seems to have had several chances to respond, but doesn't. The phone is ringing (it's been ringing repeatedly), but the other person (for whatever reason) doesn't pick up.


----------



## wandle

Andygc said:


> Do you ever read your own posts?


Kindly quote any post of mine in which I suggest someone would start a phone call in the belief that the other person would not answer.


Andygc said:


> Don't be ridiculous.


Is it not better to avoid personalities?


----------



## wandle

velisarius said:


> I don't usually agree with wandle.


I on the other hand often find myself in agreement with *velisarius*.


----------



## Andygc

How can you possibly know that somebody won't answer when the phone is ringing if you didn't know that before you made the call? What new source of information has become available? You introduced the concept of knowing mum would not answer. Knowing that requires foreknowledge. 


wandle said:


> Is it not better to avoid personalities?


I referred to your statement, not to your personality. If a phone is ringing it does not provide repeated opportunities to pick up, it provides one prolonged opportunity. If you were to make repeated calls then there would be several opportunities. But then the introduction might be "I have been calling your mum" not "I am calling your mum".


----------



## wandle

Andygc said:


> How can you possibly know ...?


There is no suggestion that the speaker knows.


wandle said:


> We can see a difference in meaning. 'She isn't answering' simply reports the fact. 'She doesn't answer' indicates that the speaker suspects she is deliberately not answering.
> We can go a stage further. 'She won't answer' (still referring to the present, i.e 'she is unwilling to answer') means the speaker is sure that she is deliberately not answering.


The above suggestions are offered as alternatives for the second part of *Poland91pl's* sentence in post 1:


Poland91pl said:


> I'm calling your mum but she's not answering or doesn't answer


Each alternative yields a different meaning, but they all belong to the same scenario: the speaker is in the course of making a call to which there is no reply.
In the second and third cases, the speaker forms an opinion as a result. Opinion is not the same as knowledge.


Andygc said:


> I referred to your statement, not to your personality.





Andygc said:


> Don't be ridiculous.


That was addressed to the statement and not to me, was it?

Even if it had been calling the other person's comment ridiculous, that would be going too far in my opinion.


----------



## Poland91pl

Thomas Tompion said:


> You say this is idiomatic, but I can't think of circumstances in which I'd say it.
> 
> I don't agree that the simple present is justified by the time-frame set by the use of the continuous present earlier - *she doesn't answer *means that I've found, on repeated occasions, that she is unwilling to answer: it's talking about a repeated action.
> 
> *She's not answering* can be talking about repeated action over a short period in the recent past, and is what you need to match the earlier continuous present - *I've rung her several times recently but she's not answering* suggests that she won't pick up the phone; the *I've rung her several times* tells us that we are talking about time in the recent past leading up to the present.
> 
> Notice the difference between *I'm calling your mum but she doesn't answer*, and *I have been calling your mum but she doesn't answer*.


I am sorry I have said you are not a native speaker. I am new here and I saw France up top of your post and it confused me. 

As to the quotation, ok I do get this, I mean habitual repeated not answering over a longer period of time where you ( where, in which ?) use simple present and a short period when continuous is used. But what about a single action right now like I'm calling her and ....not......answer ( just one single action that she didn't pick up the phone ). I'm not sure but seems to me that I've heard there are some verbs that are about single action in nature.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Poland91pl said:


> I am sorry I have said you are not a native speaker. I am new here and I saw France up top of your post and it confused me.
> 
> As to the quotation, ok I do get this, I mean habitual repeated not answering over a longer period of time where you ( where, in which ?) use simple present and a short period when continuous is used. But what about a single action right now like I'm calling her and ....not......answer ( just one single action that she didn't pick up the phone ). I'm not sure but seems to me that I've heard there are some verbs that are about single action in nature.


The usual thing would be probably to say* I'm calling her but she is not answering*.

Remember that *to call *in this sense is American in origin, I think.  I'd more usually use* to ring *than *to call* when getting in touch by telephone, but I may be old-fashioned in this.


----------



## bennymix

I think s16 in post #25 addressed this.   It's not just about verbs but about context.  Running commentary can involve many verbs.  "You're an idiot."  "You say that.  I punch you in the face [does it]."   Sports commentator watching, talking to a tv audience. 'He runs toward the goal.  He kicks.  He scores!"

Along the same line, I take exception to part of what (I think) Wandle (and some others say) says,

If you believe that the person is in reach or hearing of the phone, and it has been ringing for some time, then the failure to answer becomes equivalent to a repeated action.

This seems like undue effort to shoehorn a given example of simple present [not answering the phone] into the 'habitual or repeated action' category ['I will not answer; I will not answer, etc."].  As has emerged in the discussion, the ESL rule of thumb:  _Continuous present for one-time occurrence, and simple present for habitual or repeated acts  [with clearly defined exceptions for speech acts; and emotional 'acts' {love, hate}]_ while generally true, is rough-and-ready and has many exceptions according to context.

It's possible that Wandle is just focusing on one subtype of situation where the answerer has decided (as a plan) not to answer.   I'm not sure.



Poland91pl said:


> I am sorry I have said you are not a native speaker. I am new here and I saw France up top of your post and it confused me.
> 
> As to the quotation, ok I do get this, I mean habitual repeated not answering over a longer period of time where you ( where, in which ?) use simple present and a short period when continuous is used. But what about a single action right now like I'm calling her and ....not......answer ( just one single action that she didn't pick up the phone ). I'm not sure but seems to me that I've heard there are some verbs that are about single action in nature.


----------



## wandle

bennymix said:


> It's possible that Wandle is just focusing on one subtype of situation where the answerer has decided (as a plan) not to answer. I'm not sure.


Well, I do not see any incompatibility between the following statements:


Thomas Tompion said:


> *She's not answering* a single call probably means that the phone has rung several times but she hasn't picked it up.
> *She doesn't answer* suggests that she's been rung several times without her answering.





bennymix said:


> As has emerged in the discussion, the ESL rule of thumb: _Continuous present for one-time occurrence, and simple present for habitual or repeated acts [with clearly defined exceptions for speech acts; and emotional 'acts' {love, hate}]_ while generally true, is rough-and-ready and has many exceptions according to context.





wandle said:


> We can see a difference in meaning. 'She isn't answering' simply reports the fact. 'She doesn't answer' indicates that the speaker suspects she is deliberately not answering.
> We can go a stage further. 'She won't answer' (still referring to the present, i.e 'she is unwilling to answer') means the speaker is sure that she is deliberately not answering.


Just to clarify, 'we can see a difference in meaning' was meant to offer this as a possible, not a necessary interpretation.


----------



## Andygc

Incompatibility arises because this statement is untrue.


wandle said:


> We can see a difference in meaning. 'She isn't answering' simply reports the fact. 'She doesn't answer' indicates that the speaker suspects she is deliberately not answering.
> We can go a stage further. 'She won't answer' (still referring to the present, i.e 'she is unwilling to answer') means the speaker is sure that she is deliberately not answering.


The context of this discussion was


Poland91pl said:


> I'm calling your mum but she's not answering or doesn't answer ( I only call/ am calling her once ? Which form?


The combination "I'm calling your mum but she doesn't answer" is, quite simply, not English. It is not used to add any form of emphasis in this context. My reference to Agatha Christie was to words she might put in the mouth of the Belgian Hercule Poirot, not of the genteel, English Jane Marple.

Turning to "We can go a stage further. 'She won't answer' (still referring to the present, i.e 'she is unwilling to answer') means the speaker is sure that she is deliberately not answering." This is clearly incorrect. "She won't answer" does not and cannot refer to the present. It is a prediction. The speaker has foreknowledge of some sort, otherwise he would not be making the statement using a future tense construction. 

A "Will you ring mum?"
B "No, she won't answer."
A "Please, we must try."
B "Oh all right. I'm ringing you mum, but she won't answer."

It's thought a certainty, but it's a prediction, not a statement referring to the present.


----------



## wandle

Andygc said:


> "I'm calling your mum but she doesn't answer" is, quite simply, not English.


It is good English, as explained in post 21 and post 23.


Andygc said:


> "She won't answer" does not and cannot refer to the present.


When 'will' expresses intention, not futurity, it is referring to the present. When 'she will not answer' means 'she is unwilling to answer', it refers to the present.

For example, consider dog food. The statement 'The dog won't eat it' could refer to the future or the present, depending on the scenario.

Suppose the child gives the dog some food and it refuses to eat. The child tells the mother, 'The dog won't eat it'.
This is the present tense of 'will', expressing the dog's intention: it means the dog is unwilling in the present to eat the food.

Suppose the owner is going away and asking someone else to look after the dog and they are discussing what to feed it. The owner may say 'Don't offer it fish. The dog won't eat it'.
That is the future tense of 'eat', expressing the speaker's prediction.

The OED says this for 'will' expressing intention:


> 7. Expressing voluntary action, or conscious intention directed to the doing of what is expressed by the principal verb (without temporal reference as in 11, and without emphasis as in 10): = choose to (choose v. 3a).
> The proper word for this idea, which cannot be so precisely expressed by any other.


----------



## Andygc

Firstly, my post disagrees with post 21. I would have thought it obvious that I do not accept your explanation in that post, because I referred directly to it. Quoting yourself in an attempt to refute my disagreement with the text you are quoting seems rather pointless.

Secondly, your dog example is irrelevant to the context of "I'm calling your mum. She won't answer". The child can see the dog turning away from the food. There is no prediction. In the case of the phone call, "She won't answer" can only be a prediction based on prior knowledge of mum's behaviour. Somebody present in mum's house would be in a position to say of her what the child says of the dog, but not somebody on the other end of a telephone line.


----------



## wandle

Andygc said:


> Firstly, my post disagrees with post 21. I would have thought it obvious that I do not accept your explanation in that post, because I referred directly to it. Quoting yourself in an attempt to refute my disagreement with the text you are quoting seems rather pointless.


The object was not to refute or disagree but simply to maintain a positive statement of what is good English.


Andygc said:


> In the case of the phone call, "She won't answer" can only be a prediction based on prior knowledge of mum's behaviour.


On the contrary, in the given context of a ringing but unanswered phone, it can only be an inference on the part of the caller about the intention of the person not responding.
People make inferences all the time about another person in another place: even on the other side of the world.


----------



## Andygc

wandle said:


> On the contrary, in the given context of a ringing but unanswered phone, it can only be an inference on the part of the caller about the intention of the person not responding.


Strange, since I have already provided an example where it is not an inference. 

We disagree about this, and never will agree. That's both a statement of the present situation and a prediction.


----------



## wandle

Andygc said:


> I have already provided an example where it is not an inference.


There the context you created is different.

We may always hope for agreement, as well as courtesy.


----------

