# מחר יהיה מעונן



## sawyeric1

It will be cloudy tomorrow
מחר יהיה מעונן

So you always use the time as the subject? Like, "יום ראשון יהיה" - "Sunday will be", or if you said in Hebrew "the next couple of days will be", "next week will be"

Thanks


----------



## utopia

you can either say (in spoken hebrew) יום ראשון יהיה or ביום ראשון יהיה...

But in literary Hebrew, the formal way is with ב:
ביום ראשון יהיה מעונן, בראשון ושני ירד גשם...

בימים הקרובים יהיה גשום, ירד גשם מן הצפון עד הנגב and so on.


----------



## amikama

sawyeric1 said:


> It will be cloudy tomorrow
> מחר יהיה מעונן
> 
> So you always use the time as the subject?


No. In your example, מחר is not the subject but an adjunct of time. You could omit מחר and the resulting sentence - יהיה מעונן - would be still grammatically correct and complete. In this case the subject is impersonal (נושא סתמי).


----------



## sawyeric1

Why don't you just say "יהיה מעונן מחר"?


----------



## bazq

sawyeric1 said:


> Why don't you just say "יהיה מעונן מחר"?



You can.
It still means "*It* is going to be cloudy tomorrow", not "Tomorrow will be cloudy".


----------



## sawyeric1

Actually, it means "it *will be* cloudy tomorrow"

So which placement of מחר is more common?


----------



## Drink

sawyeric1 said:


> Actually, it means "it *will be* cloudy tomorrow"



What's the difference?


----------



## sawyeric1

'Will' or 'be going to'?


----------



## Drink

Those are subtle, context-dependent distinctions. We don't have a well-defined context, so there is no basis to prefer one over the other.


----------



## sawyeric1

יהיה is the masculine future tense form for the verb "to be" in Hebrew. הולך is the present tense form that means "is going"


----------



## Drink

That's an approximation. It's a bad assumption that their usages are always equivalent.


----------



## sawyeric1

You're welcome to prove it with example sentences


----------



## Drink

You already have the example sentence here in this thread.

You would never say in Hebrew "מחר הולך להיות מעונן", even though you can say "It's going to be cloudy tomorrow" in English.


----------



## amikama

Drink said:


> You would never say in Hebrew "מחר הולך להיות מעונן"


Never? 

(But you're right. That's just an approximation.)


----------



## sawyeric1

My tutor said "מחר הולך להיות מעונן" is perfectly fine



sawyeric1 said:


> יהיה is the masculine future tense form for the verb "to be" in Hebrew. הולך is the present tense form that means "is going"


True facts


----------



## utopia

Drink said:


> You already have the example sentence here in this thread.
> 
> You would never say in Hebrew "מחר הולך להיות מעונן", even though you can say "It's going to be cloudy tomorrow" in English.



Actually you can say that. When you know what's the weather is going to be, and you want to warn a friend or someone.


----------



## amikama

sawyeric1 said:


> True facts


I disagree. יהיה is not the exact equivalent of "will be" and הולך is not the exact equivalent of "is going". Both differ in usage, register and nuances.

English is a bad Hebrew teacher. Do not learn from it.


----------



## sawyeric1

I never said their usages were equivalent, so the "bad assumption" was not made by me

Did you miss the "disclaimer" that said "in Hebrew", Amikama?
When speaking in English, Hebrew words are defined using the English language  

Let's move on ...


sawyeric1 said:


> ... which placement of מחר is more common?


----------



## Drink

sawyeric1 said:


> I never said their usages were equivalent, so the "bad assumption" was not made by me



Yes you did:


sawyeric1 said:


> יהיה is the masculine future tense form for the verb "to be" in Hebrew. הולך is the present tense form that means "is going"


----------



## sawyeric1

Nope. Defining terms in English is different from claiming that those terms are used equivalently _in _English


----------



## Drink

Given the context, that's exactly what you were claiming:


bazq said:


> It still means "*It* is going to be cloudy tomorrow"





sawyeric1 said:


> Actually, it means "it *will be* cloudy tomorrow"


Just because "יהיה" was used doesn't mean that "will be" is a better translation than "is going to be".


----------



## sawyeric1

No, it can mean "it will be cloudy tomorrow" in Hebrew or English. A blanket statement about equivalency is not made by simply giving a translation


----------



## Drink

It could mean either "will be" or "is going to be". Your preference of the latter over the former is what is wrong.


----------



## sawyeric1

No, it's not wrong, Drink. You got it mixed up - latter is the second one, former is the first


----------



## Drink

Yes sorry, I mixed it up. My point still stands.


----------



## sawyeric1

Nope


----------

