# tenses



## lunalunera

En la oración: Hurry up! today the bus leaves/is leaving at two o'clock.
¿Que sería presente simple o continuo?
Yo pienso que es continuo pero no sé el porqué, ¿alguien me puede ayudar?
gracias


----------



## agromusica

Yo creo que las dos formas son conrrectas.


----------



## jacinta

lunalunera said:
			
		

> En la oración: Hurry up! today the bus leaves/is leaving at two o'clock.
> ¿Que sería presente simple o continuo?
> Yo pienso que es continuo pero no sé el porqué, ¿alguien me puede ayudar?
> gracias


En la primera:  *the bus leaves at two *es el presente simple.  Es decir que el autobus siempre sale a las dos todos los días.



En la segunda, *the bus is leaving *, es el futuro simple, porque se puede decir también:  *the bus is going to leave at two.* Quiere decir que en ese día el autobús saldrá a las dos.

El presente continuo sería:  *The bus is leaving, right now!*

Pero, de todas formas, se puede decirlo de las dos formas para decir la misma cosa.  Nada más es una explicación de los tiempos.


----------



## natasha2000

jacinta said:
			
		

> En la primera: *the bus leaves at two *es el presente simple. Es decir que el autobus siempre sale a las dos todos los días.
> 
> 
> 
> En la segunda, *the bus is leaving *, es el futuro simple, porque se puede decir también: *the bus is going to leave at two.* Quiere decir que en ese día el autobús saldrá a las dos.
> 
> El presente continuo sería: *The bus is leaving, right now!*
> 
> Pero, de todas formas, se puede decirlo de las dos formas para decir la misma cosa. Nada más es una explicación de los tiempos.


 
Una pequeña correción: gramáticalmente, the bus *is leaving* at two sigue siendo el *present continuous* - presente contínuo, y no futuro, pero usado para *determinar acciones en el futuro próximo*. Futuro simple sería The bus will leave at two.

Present Continuous es siempre Present continuous, sólo que tiene usos diferentes - se usa para las acciones que estan ocurriendo ahora, pero tambien para determinar acciones en el futuro muy próximo. De ahí que la correcta frase es: Today, the bus is leavining at two. The bus leaves at two significa, como ha dicho Jacinta, que el autobús sale todos los días a las dos, no sólo hoy. Es un hecho, que normalmente ocurre.
Saludos.
Natasha


----------



## jacinta

Sí, de acuerdo.  Sólo que se puede cambiar las palabras de "The bus is leaving at two" a "The bus *is going to leave* at two" y esto sería el futuro simple.
Pensaba en *la idea* y no la construcción de palabras.  Gracias por la corrección.


----------



## natasha2000

jacinta said:
			
		

> Sí, de acuerdo. Sólo que se puede cambiar las palabras de "The bus is leaving at two" a "The bus *is going to leave* at two" y esto sería el futuro simple.
> Pensaba en *la idea* y no la construcción de palabras. Gracias por la corrección.


 
Si, tienes razón. *The bus is leaving at two*, se puede también decir *The bus is going to leave at two.* 
Pero, con todo respeto, tengo que discrepar otra vez. El *going to* no es futuro simple, es una construccioón con la cual se describe una acción en futuro - intención futura o un hecho en futuro próximo. El futuro simple es will + infinitivo = the bus *will leave* at two.


----------



## ampurdan

Es cierto, yo lo estudié como futuro con "going to", diferente del futuro simple con "will" o "shall". Pero es una cuestión de mera denominación.


----------



## natasha2000

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Es cierto, yo lo estudié como futuro con "going to", diferente del futuro simple con "will" o "shall". Pero es una cuestión de mera denominación.


 
Bueno, yo no diría que sea solo la mera cuestión de denominación... Hay tiempos, y hay construcciónes que se usan para denominar ciertas acciones en un tiempo determinado. Para uno que ya habla bien un idioma, eso ya no es importante, (como para la mayoría de nativos, de los cuales la mayoría no sabe pque algo es correcto, pero sabe que es correcto) ya que sabe cuando y donde usar un tiempo o una construcción. Pero para uno que aprende un idioma, creo que es muy importante presentarle bien claro las cosas, para no confundirle, ya que lo tiene bastante con las diferencias entre las reglas gramaticales de su idioma materno y el idioma que está aprendiendo. 
O sea, si uno dice, es futuro simple, entonces es futuro simple, lo que es en inglés will + infinitivo, y no existen más futuros simples. ¿Qué es going to? es una construcción con la cual se expresa futuro, y no se usa de igual manera que un futuro simple. 
Te daré un ejemplo en español. ir + gerundio corresponde a un presente continuous en inglés, en la mayoría de los casos, o por lo menos en su significado básico - denominar la acción que está pasando ahora. Estoy leyendo un libro = I am reading a book... ¿No? Pero mientras en inglés se usa un TIEMPO, en español se usa una construcción entre el verbo IR y gerundio... 
Repito, para uno que ya habla inglés, eso deja de tener mucha importancia, pero también creo que para uno que está aprendiendo es muy importante tener ese tipo de cosas muy claras...


----------



## ampurdan

De acuerdo, tienes razón Natasha. De todas formas, es "estar" + gerundio, que muchas veces no es la mejor traducción del present continuous, sino que puede ser nuestro presente de indicativo.

Un buen ejemplo de lo que dices en castellano, Natasha, son los verbos reflexivos y los pronominales. Este es un tema de especial difícil comprensión para los angloparlantes y donde la denominación varía. Aquí en WR se habla de ambos como de "reflexive" pero no lo son. Se puede decir _lato sensu_ que ambos son pronominales, porque ambos llevan pronombre "se" declinado. Pero mientras que en el reflexivo éste hace una función sintáctica, en el pronominal _strictu sensu_ sólo es una parte del verbo sin función sintáctica.


----------



## natasha2000

ampurdan said:
			
		

> De acuerdo, tienes razón Natasha. De todas formas, es "estar" + gerundio, que muchas veces no es la mejor traducción del present continuous, sino que puede ser nuestro presente de indicativo.
> 
> Un buen ejemplo de lo que dices en castellano, Natasha, son los verbos reflexivos y los pronominales. Este es un tema de especial difícil comprensión para los angloparlantes y donde la denominación varía. Aquí en WR se habla de ambos como de "reflexive" pero no lo son. Se puede decir _lato sensu_ que ambos son pronominales, porque ambos llevan pronombre "se" declinado. Pero mientras que en el reflexivo éste hace una función sintáctica, en el pronominal _strictu sensu_ sólo es una parte del verbo sin función sintáctica.


 
Si, Max, es que a veces los dedos van más rápido de lo que me gustaría y me pasa lo que me pasa... jejeje... 
estar + gerundio sería muchas veces traducido por present continuous, e ir + gerundio con going to + infinitive... Claro, como ya he dicho, básicamente tienen esta relación, pero hay muchos ejemplos cuando éste no es el caso... 
Eso de verbos reflexivos y nominales, ya lo he visto en otro post donde participaste, un tema muy interesante, ya que a mi también me dio muchos dolores de cabeza en mis principios, me parecía que en español TODOS los verbos se convierten en reflexivos aunque no lo son según la lógica de mi idioma, pero bueno, éste es el otro tema, y no de este post...
Pero después de que leí lo que escribiste, por lo menos sé que no son reflexivos y que tienen otro nombre - nominales... 
Saludos


----------



## ampurdan

Pronominales. No los capes, pobres...


----------



## jacinta

Para los estudiantes de inglés (y los que no!  ) les dirijo a esta página de web que muestra que hay *dos* formas del futuro simple:

http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/simplefuture.html

will + verb
going to + verb


----------



## natasha2000

Jacinta, 
echa un vistazo a esta página.
http://www.english-the-easy-way.com/Future_Tense/Future_Simple_Tense.htm

Will + verb = future simple tense
going to + verb = present progressive


----------



## jacinta

¡Me pregunto si hay una diferencia entre la gramática del UK y de los EE.UU.!!  La página que me mandaste es del UK.


----------



## natasha2000

Éstas dos tembién

La primera habla de simple future tense
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verb-tenses_future.htm

esta habla de going to.
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-m_future-gt.htm


----------



## natasha2000

a ver, todo puede ser posible. Durante toda mi vida, mientras estudiaba, y luego cuando daba clases de inglés, encontraba las gramáticas que diferenciaban will+ verbo y going to + verbo de la manera que digo yo. Lo que dices tu lo oígo por primera vez en mi vida, pero de todos modos, no digo que no sea correcto, igual es otra manera de ver las cosas. Una cosa es cierta. Las reglas en un idioma no son algo que ha venido del cielo, un axioma cuyo cambio está fuera de alcance de la mano humana, ya que las reglas las han escrito los mismos humanos. Las cosas cambian y las reglas se van cambiando. Así que, me parece que hoy hemos aprendido las dos algo nuevo.

Puede ser que tengas razón, que la gramática en EU se interpreta de diferente manera que en UK. Además, mis conocimientos de inglés se basan en BE, no en AE.


----------



## natasha2000

Mira, hay más.

En esta página, mira que dice sobre el going to:

http://www.swadulted.com/workshops/eslcourse/verbsimple.html

NOTE: We also use other tenses to express future expectation. For example, we say, "Dora is going to pass her GED in June."   In other words, we use "going to" as a substitute for "will" in certain circumstances. *However, "going to" is an expression used for the future; it is not recognized as the future tense structure.*
** 
No sé si es la página de EEUU o de Gran Bretaña, ya que no sé como mirarlo.​


----------



## jacinta

¡Qué suerte que no enseño el inglés!  Siempre puedes mirar el "Home page" para averiguar de dónde viene el sitio de web.  La última viene de mi país.  (*Sigh*) Me rindo.


----------



## natasha2000

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Pronominales. No los capes, pobres...


 
vaaaaaaaaale....  voy aprendiendo...


----------



## Geoff Jordan

There is no such thing as a future tense in English.  _Will_ is used most frequently to express agreement, disagreement and decisions.  
The phone rings. _ I'll get it. _
_Where's the report? I'll send it tomorrow._

Compare: 
_Let's meet outside the cinema. _
_OK, I'll see you outside the cinema at 9. _

_What are you doing tonight?_
_I'm meeting John outside the cinema at 9. _

_Will _is also used with modifiers like _perhaps_, and with verbs like _doubt expect, hope, etc. _

The future is most commonly expressed with the present continuous and going to, where, most of the time, either can be used.


----------



## natasha2000

Geoff Jordan said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as a future tense in English. _Will_ is used most frequently to express agreement, disagreement and decisions.
> The phone rings. _I'll get it. _
> _Where's the report? I'll send it tomorrow._
> 
> Compare:
> _Let's meet outside the cinema. _
> _OK, I'll see you outside the cinema at 9. _
> 
> _What are you doing tonight?_
> _I'm meeting John outside the cinema at 9. _
> 
> _Will _is also used with modifiers like _perhaps_, and with verbs like _doubt expect, hope, etc. _
> 
> The future is most commonly expressed with the present continuous and going to, where, most of the time, either can be used.


 
El futuro no existe en inglés? Y qué es will entonces?
Jordan, te recomiendo que eches un vistazo a las páginas que puse más arriba...


----------



## Geoff Jordan

I repeat, there is no future tense in English.  I suggest you get a clear definition of "tense".


----------



## Geoff Jordan

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> El futuro no existe en inglés? Y qué es will entonces?
> Jordan, te recomiendo que eches un vistazo a las páginas que puse más arriba...


 
I posted a rather quick response to this question and I should have answered the question. 

_Will _is not a tense, any more than _do_ or _did_ are tenses.  _Will _is used in a variety of ways, one of which is to signal the future.


----------



## natasha2000

Geoff Jordan said:
			
		

> I posted a rather quick response to this question and I should have answered the question.
> 
> _Will _is not a tense, any more than _do_ or _did_ are tenses. _Will _is used in a variety of ways, one of which is to signal the future.


 
I did not say that WILL only is a future tense. There are various future tenses, and do and did are auxiliary verbs used to form negative and interrogative sentences in present or past SIMPLE tense, respectively.

There are many future tenses, for an example:
Future SIMPLE tense is made by particle will + infinitive - I sing
Future CONTINUOUS tense is made of the future simple of the auxiliary  verb to be, which is WILL BE + verb+ing - I will be singing
Future PERFECT tense is made of the future simple of the auxiliary verb to have which is WILL HAVE + participle... - I will have sung....

¿Continuo?


----------



## Geoff Jordan

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I did not say that WILL only is a future tense. There are various future tenses, and do and did are auxiliary verbs used to form negative and interrogative sentences in present or past SIMPLE tense, respectively.
> 
> There are many future tenses, for an example:
> Future SIMPLE tense is made by particle will + infinitive - I sing
> Future CONTINUOUS tense is made of the future simple of the auxiliary verb to be, which is WILL BE + verb+ing - I will be singing
> Future PERFECT tense is made of the future simple of the auxiliary verb to have which is WILL HAVE + participle... - I will have sung....
> 
> ¿Continuo?


 
There is no need that I can see for you to demonstrate your knowledge.  What I say stands.


----------



## natasha2000

Geoff Jordan said:
			
		

> There is no need that I can see for you to demonstrate your knowledge. What I say stands.


 
I am not DEMONSTRATING my knowledge. I just say what is obvious.
Nevetheless, I would appreciate if you quoted any sources from which you drew this conclusion, as I and Jacinta did... Some book of grammar, or maybe some web page will do...
Thank you in advance.


----------



## Geoff Jordan

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I am not DEMONSTRATING my knowledge. I just say what is obvious.
> Nevetheless, I would appreciate if you quoted any sources from which you drew this conclusion, as I and Jacinta did... Some book of grammar, or maybe some web page will do...
> Thank you in advance.


 
There is, in my humble opinion (IMHO), no need to state the obvious. What is interesting, again IMHO, is that English has no future tense. If we look at the verb _go,_ there is the past tense _went_ and there is the past participle _gone._  There is no future tense.  If you need references for this, to me, obvious fact, then I suggest Randolf Quirk or Michael Swann.


----------



## natasha2000

Geoff Jordan said:
			
		

> There is, in my humble opinion (IMHO), no need to state the obvious. What is interesting, again IMHO, is that English has no future tense. If we look at the verb _go,_ there is the past tense _went_ and there is the past participle _gone._ There is no future tense. If you need references for this, to me, obvious fact, then I suggest Randolf Quirk or Michael Swann.


 
Excuse me, but I am really confused... What is then I will go? Can you define this sentence? If there is no future tense, what is then
I will go
I will be going
I will have gone
I will have be going
etc...
What is all this? How do Mr. Quirk and Swann call this?


----------



## Geoff Jordan

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Excuse me, but I am really confused... What is then I will go? Can you define this sentence? If there is no future tense, what is then
> I will go
> I will be going
> I will have gone
> I will have be going
> etc...
> What is all this? How do Mr. Quirk and Swann call this?


 
1. It's Swan, not Swann. My mistake
2. Sentences cannot be defined. 
3. Tense is an inflectional form of a verb expressing a specific time distinction.
4. There is no future tense in English.
5,. _Will_ is often used to express the future in English.

My only point was: students of EFL should be disabused from the false notion that _will_ is the main way that the future is expressed in English.


----------



## natasha2000

Geoff Jordan said:
			
		

> 1. It's Swan, not Swann. My mistake
> 2. Sentences cannot be defined.
> 3. Tense is an inflectional form of a verb expressing a specific time distinction.
> 4. There is no future tense in English.
> 5,. _Will_ is often used to express the future in English.
> 
> My only point was: students of EFL should be disabused from the the false notion that _will_ is main way that the future is expressed in English.


 
OK. I give up. There is no point in this. You are free to think whatever you want.
Best regards and Merry Christmas.


----------



## Geoff Jordan

Don't give up.  This is a forum for discussion, no?  Merry Christmas to you too.


----------



## natasha2000

Geoff Jordan said:
			
		

> Don't give up. This is a forum for discussion, no? Merry Christmas to you too.


 
I have to, since you are not giving any proof of what you are saying. You are just saying "it does not exist", but you do not say why do you think so, nor you give any logical explanation. 
All grammar books I have read in my life were taliking about Future tense, and not only one, but various, and I find it very logical. All languages in this world have future tense, then why English shouldn't? I would like to hear a logical explanation for what you're saying, to have something to think about and to try to understand, but you're giving nothing. Just the same old sentence "It does not exist". And when I ask you what are then all those sentences I put, you repeat your laconic answer, without any explanation, "It cannot be defined" But why? Who says that? Since when? I really do not understand how come that all of a sudden, there is no future tense in English!
So, that is why I give up. Because I do not see this discussion as a constructive one. Sorry, but this is how I feel.
Happy New Year. To all.


----------



## Geoff Jordan

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I have to, since you are not giving any proof of what you are saying. You are just saying "it does not exist", but you do not say why do you think so, nor you give any logical explanation.
> All grammar books I have read in my life were taliking about Future tense, and not only one, but various, and I find it very logical. All languages in this world have future tense, then why English shouldn't? I would like to hear a logical explanation for what you're saying, to have something to think about and to try to understand, but you're giving nothing. Just the same old sentence "It does not exist". And when I ask you what are then all those sentences I put, you repeat your laconic answer, without any explanation, "It cannot be defined" But why? Who says that? Since when? I really do not understand how come that all of a sudden, there is no future tense in English!
> So, that is why I give up. Because I do not see this discussion as a constructive one. Sorry, but this is how I feel.
> 
> 
> Happy New Year. To all.


 
How do you prove that something doesn't exist? You can't.  What you can very easily do is prove that something is not the case.  You say all languages have a future tense and I say they don't.  One of us is wrong.

Similarly, that sentences can't be defined is simply the case.  Definitions do not pertain to sentences.  

It's simply a fact, and an interesting one, that English has no future tense.  It's a fact because tense is defined the way it is, and that's the way grammarians find it best to try and pin down syntax.

If you don't see the discussion as constructive, then I'm sorry. I was  humbly drawing your attention to a fact, and if you can't get your head around it then try yoga.


----------



## natasha2000

Geoff Jordan said:
			
		

> How do you prove that something doesn't exist? You can't. What you can very easily do is prove that something is not the case. You say all languages have a future tense and I say they don't. One of us is wrong.
> 
> Similarly, that sentences can't be defined is simply the case. Definitions do not pertain to sentences.
> 
> It's simply a fact, and an interesting one, that English has no future tense. It's a fact because tense is defined the way it is, and that's the way grammarians find it best to try and pin down syntax.
> 
> If you don't see the discussion as constructive, then I'm sorry. I was humbly drawing your attention to a fact, and if you can't get your head around it then try yoga.


 
There is no need to be rude, Jordan. I do not need yoga to know what I have known all my life. And I certainly will not change my mind only because you say so, without giving me some reasonable explanation. If dozens of teachers I had in my life say there is Future tense in English, if if many grammars I read say Future exists in English, if all native English speaking people I know say there is Future in English, and they gave me reasonable explanations for that, I won't simply stop believing in that only because you say so, without giving any explanation. Grammar is not a religion, that someone can say to you God exists and that's it, without giving you any proof for what one claims.
I will correct myself and I will say that *no indo-european* language lacks of Future tense, because I do know that some non indo-european languages lack of some categories these languages have. So, if Spanish,  French, German, Serbian, Russian, Polish, Chec etc have Present, I really do not see why English language would not have it. Please, give some logical explanation or stop this ridiculous disussion.


----------



## Geoff Jordan

Well now it's my turn to give up.  Please forgive me for any offence and be assured that none was intended.


----------



## ampurdan

I think your differences arise from the definition of tense each one of you bears in mind. I think both of you agree that "tense" is "a distinction of form in a verb to express distinctions of time or duration of the action or state it denotes" as MerrWebster says. Geoff says we have to consider only the inflectional changes in the same word and Natasha says we have to consider the auxiliary verbs that modify the temporal and modal denotations of the verb.


----------



## Geoff Jordan

ampurdan said:
			
		

> I think your differences arise from the definition of tense each one of you bears in mind. I think both of you agree that "tense" is "a distinction of form in a verb to express distinctions of time or duration of the action or state it denotes" as MerrWebster says. Geoff says we have to consider only the inflectional changes in the same word and Natasha says we have to consider the auxiliary verbs that modify the temporal and modal denotations of the verb.


 
Yes, well I'll go along with that.  Of course _will_ is used to modify the temporal denotation of a verb but English verbs don't have a future tense.  How do you say _Lo haré_ _mañana_? You say _I'll do it tomorrow_. But while _haré_ is a future tense _I'll do _isn't.


----------



## Geoff Jordan

OK, this is my last shot, I promise.  And here come the words of my good friend Kevin Gregg, probably the cleverest man on the planet.

There is no future tense in English.  'Will' is present tense (of 'would', which, conveniently enough, is the past tense form of 'will').  Or, some would say, there are two tenses in English, past and non-past; which is 
probably a better way of looking at it, precisely because the 'present 
 tense' is used to express future time:  _The plane leaves at 9 tonight,_ 
 etc.  The Romance languages have future tenses, but they're neatly 
tacked on to the verbs.  Japanese is like English, past and non-past, although some folks question whether they're tenses rather than aspect markers.


----------



## natasha2000

Geoff Jordan said:
			
		

> OK, this is my last shot, I promise. And here come the words of my good friend Kevin Gregg, probably the cleverest man on the planet.
> 
> There is no future tense in English. 'Will' is present tense (of 'would', which, conveniently enough, is the past tense form of 'will'). Or, some would say, there are two tenses in English, past and non-past; which is
> probably a better way of looking at it, precisely because the 'present
> tense' is used to express future time: _The plane leaves at 9 tonight,_
> etc. The Romance languages have future tenses, but they're neatly
> tacked on to the verbs. Japanese is like English, past and non-past, although some folks question whether they're tenses rather than aspect markers.


 
OK: At last you gave some explanation of what you're saying. But according to this, it means that the TENSE is only what is called simple tense and what is called compound tense (containing auxiliary verb) is not a tense. Then, I understand it like this, according to you and Mr. Gregg:
In Spanish, for example, all tenses containing auxiliary verbs are not exactly tenses. According to you, tenses in Spanish are:
presente - escribo, escribes, escribe...
imperfecto - escribía...
futuro - escribiré, escribirás...
pretérido indefinido (o bien pretérito perfecto simple) -escribí, escribiste...
etc..
and the following ARE NOT tenses:
pretérito perfecto compuesto - he escrito, has escrito...
pluscuamperfecto - había escrito, habías escrito...
etc..
The same in English and in any other language.
In one earlier post you say, go has past simple and participle went and gone. So, according to you, gone is a tense???? As far as I know, gone without auxiliary verb does not mean anything... You cannot use in one sentence only gone. It lacks of something, you have to put some auxiliary verb to have some TENSE! Otherwise, it would be acting like an adjective, which is, for sure  NO TENSE!
What do you think about this?


----------



## jester.

I think Geoff Jordan is wrong.
He does most obviously not consider the meaning a verb has in combination with an auxiliary verb.
It is indeed insignificant whether "will" is a verb in present tense or any other one. What is significant is that "will" as an auxiliary and another verb in its infinitive form express a future meaning.

Natasha, it does not surprise me that you have been confused.
Just keep in mind that some tenses are compound and formed with an auxiliary verb.


----------



## natasha2000

Thanks for the support, but my confusion was not about whether future exists or not in English, or in any other language. I know what I know, since I've been in contact with English learning it and later teaching it almost all my life (started at the age of 5 in kindergarden). That of course doesn't mean that I cannot be wrong or there is nothing more I can learn, I am aware of my limits, but some basic things like the existence of tenses is something that I am simply too sure about.
I was confused with the fact that Jordan kept on claiming something without giving some kind of explanation... Now when he gave the explanation, I thought about it and I simply cannot see enough logic in it to change my mind. I stick to the "old school" until someone gives me something logical enough to change my mind...
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!


----------



## jester.

I would like to add that Google can help a lot with such questions.

I found this using the keywords "english grammar future".

I'd like to quote one paragraph from it, anybody who is interested furthermore can read the whole article.



			
				English as 2nd language said:
			
		

> In English, *tenses* are formed by conjugating an *auxiliary verb plus a standard form of the principal verb* (the base form, the gerund form, or the past participle form). It is import to focus on the variations in the auxiliary verb to properly use English tenses.


Greetings,
j3st3r


----------



## natasha2000

j3st3r said:
			
		

> I would like to add that Google can help a lot with such questions.
> 
> I found this using the keywords "english grammar future".
> 
> I'd like to quote one paragraph from it, anybody who is interested furthermore can read the whole article.
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> j3st3r


 
This is what I was talking about... 
On the other hand, the page you quote makes me to re-think what Jacinta said. This page, like the page Jacinta sent, talks about Future using WILL and Future using GOING TO, saying completely the opposite of the web pages I found and what I was tought and believed until now - that will + infinitive is Future Simple Tense, and going to is a construction which serves to express future actions. So, since I am a little "thick"  and I still don't know how to see the origin of this page (in spite of the explanation Jacinta gave me ), can you tell me if it is American or British English Page?
Maybe after all, THERE IS a difference in interpreting the Future tense between BE grammar and AE grammar...


----------



## jester.

I cannot.

However I can try to explain you something about the future tenses.

But pay attention to the fact that the following is just what I know and I cannot guarantee that this is correct.

From what I know, AE (American English) uses the future tenses according to personal preference, so there is no difference in saying "I will" and "I am going to".

In BE there is a distinction.
The will-future is used to describe events on which have no influence like e.g. "Tomorrow the sun will shine".

The going-to-future is used to express something you are planning and which you can influence like "Tomorrow I'm going to go out with my boyfriend."

You might also want to consider this page.

Or this one.

Greetings
j3st3r


----------



## natasha2000

j3st3r said:
			
		

> I cannot.
> 
> However I can try to explain you something about the future tenses.
> 
> But pay attention to the fact that the following is just what I know and I cannot guarantee that this is correct.
> 
> From what I know, AE (American English) uses the future tenses according to personal preference, so there is no difference in saying "I will" and "I am going to".
> 
> In BE there is a distinction.
> The will-future is used to describe events on which have no influence like e.g. "Tomorrow the sun will shine".
> 
> The going-to-future is used to express something you are planning and which you can influence like "Tomorrow I'm going to go out with my boyfriend."
> 
> You might also want to consider this page.
> 
> Or this one.
> 
> Greetings
> j3st3r


 
This is completely correct, but this is not an issue. Yes, will is used for future actions that are not influenced by a speaker's will, or wish, and going to expresses something that speaker is planning to do.

But my question was:
There is only one way to make future simple tense - will+infinitive, and going to is not a tense, it is a construction to express the future actions (yes, the planned ones!)
Or there are two ways of future simple tense - will+infinitive and going to.

And, if there is some difference in AE and BE interpreting of the term Future Simple Tense.


----------



## jester.

I think one can go on forever thinking about whether "going to" forms a tense or not, but what does it eventually matter?
It expresses a future sense, actually that's all you need to know.

This is my point, but if you are infinitely curious and want to find out if the "going-to-construction" is considered a tense or not, I cannot help with what I know.

This article from Wikipedia does not mention "going to" as a future tense.
But you and I know that these Wikipedia articles are not 100% reliable.

Maybe someone else has a more satisfying answer to your question.


----------

