# before + "will" future



## Pentapoli

In a book used for preparing students for an exam for a certificate in (American)  English I found  the following sentence:
"It won't be long *before *most homes *will make *use of wind power and other forms of alternative energy.  
As we teach *"no future after temporals" *could somebody tell me if this is some kind of exception?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

No, I don't think so. In BE I'd think it just wrong. I'd say 'before most homes make use....'.


----------



## baker589

I agree, although I'd be more inclined to say _...are making use of..._. It seems strange to find such an 'error' in a text book...


----------



## George French

Thomas Tompion said:


> No, I don't think so. In BE I'd think it just wrong. I'd say 'before most homes make use....'.


 
"*will make *use"

Just for me, & maybe a few others, what is grammatically wrong?

GF..


----------



## Loob

This is an interesting one.

It's crystal clear that, when we're talking about sequential actions, we do not use the future with temporal conjunctions: _He'll get here before she comes_, not _he'll get here before she will come._

But it's not quite so clear with constructions like _"it won't be long before X"._

Personally, I think I'd always put X in the present tense. But others seem happy to put it in the future tense (I even found one example from_ The Times._)

I still think the best rule to teach ESL learners is *"no future after temporals"*


----------



## panjandrum

It won't be long before <a clause that defines a specific time marker>.

It must be possible at any time in the future to assess the truth of the specific time marker.
A clause with a verb in the present tense defines such a specific time marker.
A clause with a verb in the future tense does not.


----------



## Aardvark01

Thanks Loob for your example:
_He'll get here before she comes_, *not* _he'll get here before she will come._

I now understand how the rule *"no future after temporals" *works. 

However, in the case of:  
"It won't be long *before *most homes *will make *use of wind power ..."

I think this sentence does not sound *wrong* because: 

*A*. the imprecise "it won't be long" works with the imprecision of "most", 
*B*. "will + verb" is *not* a non-specific time marker but an *emphatic* equal to "*must* + verb".

By extension:
_He will get here __before she comes_
_He will get here before most guests will come_
_It won't be long before she will come_
_It won't be long before most guests will come_

We don't know *when* it will come to be and we don't know *how many*, but we do know it *WILL* happen.


----------



## Forero

Welcome to the forum, Pentapoli.

I agree with those who say this sentence is fine with "will make", and I am surprised anyone would object to it.  This sentence does not say that something will happen before something else but in essence means the same as:

_Before long, most homes will make use of wind power and other forms of alternative energy._

In other words, the sentence is talking about most homes making use ... in the future, and the first part is about how far in the future this is to happen.  The "make use" clause appropriately bears the tense, aspect, and mood for the sentence as in:

_The time is fast approaching when most homes will make use of wind power and other forms of alternative energy.

_or

_Most homes will make use of wind power and other forms of alternative energy - and it will be soon.

_The sentence is arranged the way it is to put focus on the "how soon".

EDIT: Aardvark's examples are interesting. I don't think the issue is precision vs. imprecision or the "how many" but a matter of focus/emphasis. The sentences Aardvark has ed would work with the right intonation.


----------



## Pentapoli

Thank you everybody for your interesting views.
It now seems to me that "before" kind of defines "long" and does not introduce a time clause really.
Have a nice weekend.


----------



## baker589

Forero said:


> Welcome to the forum, Pentapoli.
> 
> I agree with those who say this sentence is fine with "will make", and I am surprised anyone would object to it.  This sentence does not say that something will happen before something else but in essence means the same as:
> 
> EDIT: Aardvark's examples are interesting. I don't think the issue is precision vs. imprecision or the "how many" but a matter of focus/emphasis. The sentences Aardvark has ed would work with the right intonation.



I'm afraid I have to disagree.  The ones that Aardvark has crossed are incorrect.  The reason your before long works is because you have not already implied it is in the future as in the original sencence:

I will do X before I do Y.  We know from the fact that X is in the future that Y is also in the future, because Y will not be done until after X has been done. 

Since the general trend is that AE speakers do not see a problem with it but BE speakers do, I assume it's a BE/AE thing.


----------



## Forero

The phrase "it won't be long" is not a statement about an event in the future like "he will get here".  I would use _will_ in the sample sentence because I feel it says something here that plain present tense would not: that the writer is stating that alternative energy is coming rather than merely assuming that it comes.

Does anyone object to the following sentence:

_It won't be long in coming that most homes will make use of wind power and other forms of alternative energy.
_
In this sentence, which to me has the same meaning, I would be hard pressed to leave out the word _will_.

Can someone point me to an explanation of the "no future after temporals" theory, preferably one with lots of examples and/or precise definitions?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Dear Forero,

I couldn't start a sentence: _it won't be long in coming that...,_ so I have to say that I object to your sentence, I'm afraid.


----------



## baker589

I agree, although I do accept that you do need the will after coming.


----------



## Loob

baker589 said:


> Since the general trend is that AE speakers do not see a problem with it but BE speakers do, I assume it's a BE/AE thing.


I think you may be on to something, baker  I've just had a look at the British National Corpus and the Corpus of Contemporary American English.

In all the BNC examples, "it won't be long before" is followed by the present tense.

The majority of the COCA examples also use the present after "it won't be long before", but a significant minority use the future.  The ratio is about four to one.


----------



## Thomas Veil

Loob said:


> This is an interesting one.
> 
> It's crystal clear that, when we're talking about sequential actions, we do not use the future with temporal conjunctions: _He'll get here before she comes_, not _he'll get here before she will come._


"Will" _is_ fine, however, when it's used in the intentional sense: "Hell will freeze over before she will come".  I think that that might be the difference here: it won't be long until most home inten



panjandrum said:


> It won't be long before <a clause that defines a specific time marker>.
> 
> It must be possible at any time in the future to assess the truth of the specific time marker.
> A clause with a verb in the present tense defines such a specific time marker.
> A clause with a verb in the future tense does not.


What about "It won't be long until my victory is assured"?  It seems to me that, according to your logic, "my victory is assured" cannot be evaluated as true or false until I actually achieve victory.  So it should be "It won't be long until I achieve victory".  Is there any difference between "It won't be long until my victory is assured" and "It won't be long until I will achieve victory"?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Thomas Veil said:


> [...]
> What about "It won't be long until my victory is assured"? It seems to me that, according to your logic, "my victory is assured" cannot be evaluated as true or false until I actually achieve victory. So it should be "It won't be long until I achieve victory". Is there any difference between "It won't be long until my victory is assured" and "It won't be long until I will achieve victory"?


Yes.  In BE we say the first but not the second.

I take your point about the intentional sense, Thomas, but I can't accept that the other meaning is susceptible to logic rather than the way the language handles idiom.  Several European languages are much more logical  about when-clauses - if the meaning is future, they use the future tense: in BE we don't on the occasions we are discussing.


----------



## Loob

Hi Thomas,

I don't think we're talking about "intentional will" (= want to, be willing to) in Pentapoli's original example.

It seems to me - from a comparison of the BNC and COCA examples - that AmE is willing to accept the future tense after "it won't be long before" whereas BrE isn't. 

That may be the effect of other languages on AmE. But I'm just speculating...


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hi Loob,

I agree with you about the 'intentional will'.  It's not what we are talking about in this thread.  I mentioned it, in the hope of dismissing it, because Thomas Veil had raised the issue. 

I think you may well be right about an AE/BE split; that was why I tried to make clear that I was speaking for BE alone.


----------



## baker589

Thomas Veil said:


> "Will" _is_"Hell will freeze over before she will come".
> 
> "It won't be long until I will achieve victory"?



You can't say either of these in BE, they just don't make sense.


----------



## Forero

To me we are dealing with a kind of cleft sentence that doesn't quite follow the usual formula.  Changing "won't be" to "isn't" in this sentence would be inconsequential, as would changing "before" to "until", but changing "will make" to "make" would change the meaning.  I don't see "will" in this particular sentence as expressing willingness, intention, consent, or obligation.  Instead I see it as just about as close to "simple future" as English can get.



Thomas Tompion said:


> Dear Forero,
> 
> I couldn't start a sentence: _it won't be long in coming that...,_ so I have to say that I object to your sentence, I'm afraid.


How about the following sentence?

_A time when most homes will make use of wind power and other forms of alternative energy will not be long in coming._

Does it seem any better to you?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I had a Damascene moment this morning. It suddenly occurred to me that people do say, of an injured footballer, for instance: _it will be three weeks before he will be able to play again._

They also say: _it will be three weeks before he is able to play again._

I'm now wondering, of course, if I can't hear someone saying: _it will not be long before he will be able to play again_. It sounds distinctly possible. but _it will not be long before he will play again_ sounds wrong still.


----------



## Mack&Mack

Forero said:


> To me we are dealing with a kind of cleft sentence that doesn't quite follow the usual formula. Changing "won't be" to "isn't" in this sentence would be inconsequential, as would changing "before" to "until", but changing "will make" to "make" would change the meaning. I don't see "will" in this particular sentence as expressing willingness, intention, consent, or obligation. Instead I see it as just about as close to "simple future" as English can get.
> 
> How about the following sentence?
> 
> _A time when most homes will make use of wind power and other forms of alternative energy will not be long in coming._
> 
> Does it seem any better to you?


 
I know it is not my place to cut in, but I am wondering if what I was taught could help.

_Let me know when he comes._  (meaning that 'Let me know right after he arrives) => "when he comes" is a time clause.

_Let me know when he will come._  (meaning that "Let me know when he is planning to come) => "when he will come" is not a time clause.

_Let me know if he comes._  _Let me know if he will come._ 
=> "if he comes" is a conditional clause.

What I was taught was I can use "will" unless there is a time clause or a conditional clause. I am sorry if I am confusing you more.  

I can't seem to apply this rule to before-clauses but hope this helps.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

You've been well taught Mack&Mack; that's all very sound.  The difficulty for you is that we get interested in small exceptions to these excellent rules, and natter on about them.  In my view, you'd be well advised to stick to what you've been taught.


----------



## Forero

Mack&Mack said:


> _Let me know when he comes._  (meaning that 'Let me know right after he arrives)


This is indeed a possible interpretation.  The same thing can also be expressed as:

_Let me know when he has come.

_or in the style of a century or two ago:
_
Let me know when he will have come.
_


> _Let me know when he will come._  (meaning that "Let me know when he is planning to come) => "when he will come" is not a time clause.


Here both the italicized sentence and the one in quotes are ambiguous, but they do share at least one meaning.  I see a time clause here too, if I understand what you mean by the term, but whereas the first sentence references a time after he has arrived, this sentence references a time before he arrives.





> _Let me know if he comes._  _Let me know if he will come._
> => "if he comes" is a conditional clause.


The same thing applies to _if_ as to _when_:

_Let me know if he comes._ can mean "Let me know if and when he has come."
_Let me know if he will come._ is a valid sentence which can mean "Let me know if he agrees to come."





> What I was taught was I can use "will" unless there is a time clause or a conditional clause. I am sorry if I am confusing you more.
> 
> I can't seem to apply this rule to before-clauses but hope this helps.


_When_, _if_, _before_, _until_, and _after_ behave somewhat similarly but each has its own properties too.

If there is a grammar or logic rule about _will_ in temporal clauses, we need to be more specific about what sense of _will_ we mean and about what constitutes a "temporal clause", or the exceptions can easily outnumber the things that follow the rule.

"It will not be long before he will play again" sounds OK to me.

I think all four of the following are possible and mean almost, but not quite, the same thing:

_It won't be long before most homes *make *use of wind power and other forms of alternative energy.
__It won't be long before most homes *will make *use of wind power and other forms of alternative energy._
_It won't be long before most homes *have made *use of wind power and other forms of alternative energy.
__It won't be long before most homes *will have made *use of wind power and other forms of alternative energy.

_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero's post emphasises for me the differences between AE and BE over this. I was particularly struck by


> or in the style of a century or two ago:
> 
> _Let me know when he will have come._


I could find no instance in important writing in AE or BE before about 1930 of this usage. No example for

when he will have come
when he will have gone
when he will have been
when he will have had
when he will have got
when he will have gotten

If this was really common in the style of a century or two ago, examples shouldn't be hard to find. Would you give us some, please, Forero?


----------



## waggledook

To express his intention wouldn't it be best to use the present continuous (which is more usual in expressing future intentions in any case).

As a BE speaker, I see no issue with, "Let me know when he's coming".

I think that regardless of whether we're dealing with a time clause or not the use of will (in most cases) sounds a little unnatural to indicate future plans, unless spontaneous in nature. 

That said, most of the examples that have been discussed so far seem to refer to future predictions and not intentions. 

I'm not sure if what we can "hear" is the best way of going about things here. We can hear an awful lot of things.

"If I'd have known.." is a dependent clause I often hear from the lips of fellow English teachers. I think most native speakers would not notice or care. To be it sounds jarring but to others not. I think it's the same as with other examples given here. It is simply redundant. I'm not sure the use of "will" in most of the previous examples really adds in any way to the meaning.

Your previous example Thomas:

"It will not be long before he will be able to play again."

It might sound acceptable, but adds nothing that isn't already clear in, "... he's able to play again."




Forero said:


> _It won't be long before most homes *make *use of wind power and other forms of alternative energy.
> __It won't be long before most homes *will make *use of wind power and other forms of alternative energy._
> _It won't be long before most homes *have made *use of wind power and other forms of alternative energy.
> __It won't be long before most homes *will have made *use of wind power and other forms of alternative energy.
> 
> _



You say that none of these really mean exactly the same. I agree that the use of the simple or perfect forms have very different meanings, but as far as the other two forms go, I can't see a real difference.

If you are implying intention, this is by no means clear seeing as "will" is not usually used to express such intentions. Perhaps the difference in meaning is something else that I've missed?

I don't think this thread will ever determine if this structure be "correct" or not, but I'm yet to be convinced that it's a "necessary" construction.

I'm sorry if I'm miles behind on this discussion and have taken this in an irrelevant direction! (I'm trying to keep up as best I can!)

Please allow a very small digression (only because I think it might be relevant), but what do AE speakers think of the following:

*If he will come, I will speak to him.*

I assume we all think of this as technically incorrect. but perhaps I'm wrong?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

waggledook said:


> [...]
> Your previous example Thomas:
> 
> "It will not be long before he will be able to play again."
> 
> It might sound acceptable, but adds nothing that isn't already clear in, "... he's able to play again."[...]


But the point is, Waggledook, not whether it adds anything, but whether it's what people correctly say. There are often several different ways of saying the same thing. We don't have a public agreement to choose just one of them and suppress the others, because we've already got a way of saying whatever it is. You write a little as though you think that ought to be the case.


----------



## waggledook

I'm very sorry, it was not my intention to dictate whether a particular formulation was correct or not. I simply wanted to make clear that I didn't see the use of "will" as changing the meaning of the sentence.

It has been contended at various points throughout this thread that "will" is necessary in that it refers to a specific function of "will". I feel that in both the original example and the one given by yourself that this is not the case. 

Whether it is said "correctly" or not is a whole different issue which I can't possibly determine. You might take the opposite view point that because something is said, it is said "correctly". I admit that I would in most cases correct my students for using will in these clauses simply because it sounds incorrect to me. I'm happy to accept that others, particularly those using American English, would disagree with me. From your previous posts however, I imagine that you don't. 

Once again, I really don't wish to suppress different ways of expressing similar ideas- far from it. I apologise if that was the impression I have.


----------



## Forero

Here is one example, on page 156:

_But to-morrow; when I will have lost you, I will be, as if an outcast from Paradise. _

(A.D. 1843)

I wish someone would explain what is supposed to be wrong with this construction.


----------



## Loob

Forero, I think you are throwing the baby out with the bath-water

I think we would all agree that in clauses beginning "before/when/while" we normally use the present rather than the future...

Here, we're talking about a quite specfic use of before: "it won't be long before" + X.

My impression is that BrE is more reluctant to use the future tense for X than AmE. But it's not impossible in BrE, as TT has demonstrated.


----------



## Forero

Loob said:


> I think we would all agree that in clauses beginning "before/when/while" we normally use the present rather than the future...


I don't think I agree with this statement about "before/when/while".  I would need more information to say for sure.  "After" does seem to affect whether future tense sounds right, but probably not "when".  "Before" seems to have "issues" sometimes, but I am not sure what is the exception and what is the rule.

Some of the sentences people have given as impossibilities I see as good sentences using _will_ in a present tense meaning, usually suggesting some type of "willingness", but I see some of them as fine with _will_ in its future tense meaning.  I suspect there are sentences in which I would not accept future-tense _will_ after _before_, but I need to study this some more before I can say what type of sentences they would be.

This is a very intriguing question.

For some reason "until" sounds better to me in the sentence in question, but "before" works too.


----------



## juandiego

Very interesting.

A situation in which something will happen but we don't know exactly when, I think, it is a typical case that is solved in other lenguages in the subjunctive mood (well, at least in Spanish). So that, I wonder whether it is possible to do the same in English:
_It won't be long till it be.
It won't be long before she come._
Is this usage of the subjunctive mood right in English?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

No, I'm afraid it isn't with _before_, Juandiego.


----------



## juandiego

Thomas Tompion said:


> No, I'm afrrad it isn't with _before_, Juandiego.


Thanks Thomas.
Sorry, still it's unclear for me.
Does it imply that without "_before_" it could be plausible? As in the first example I brought up _It won't take long until it be_, in order to refer to a quite likely but unspecified moment in the future.

I think it isn't English idiomatic. I'd like to know just whether or not it is plausible currently or if it was at anytime in the past of the English language.


----------



## spb

I'm firmly of the BE persuasion on this one. "It won't be long until ... will ..." reminds me of one my (least) favourite phrases in some mission statements: "Positively committed to working towards ..."!!! Cut the **** and just say it!


----------



## Aardvark01

juandiego said:


> Very interesting.
> 
> A situation in which something will happen but we don't know exactly when, I think, it is a typical case that is solved in other lenguages in the subjunctive mood (well, at least in Spanish). So that, I wonder whether it is possible to do the same in English:
> _It won't be long till it be._
> _It won't be long before she come._
> Is this usage of the subjunctive mood right in English?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


I agree with TT because:

1/ It won't be long *before* she comes.

X = when she arrives
---> = time direction

now<----X

2/ It won't be long *until* she comes.

now---->X

However, though 1/ may be incorrect grammar I would not be surprised to hear it in common speech.


----------



## waggledook

How is 1/ incorrect grammar aardvark?

I don't think before and until have the same meaning. I still think both are possible.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I was saying, post 33, that the subjunctive wasn't correct with _before_:

_It won't be long before she come._

I thought nobody objected to_ It won't be long before she comes_ and that the whole argument was about _it won't be long before she will come_.


----------



## baker589

I find it hard to believe that this thread has been kept going so long.  I think Loob had it exactly right in #30.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Loob said:


> Here, we're talking about a quite specfic use of before: "it won't be long before" + X.


Agreed. Essentially, it's a fixed expression meaning "soon", a time adverbial. That is not the same as one action happening *before* or *after* another. If we start looking at _other_ expressions meaning "soon", future tense is used more often than not, I think:

In the not too distant future, most homes *will make *use of wind power and other forms of alternative energy.
Before long, most homes *will* make use of wind power...
Soon, most homes *will*...

This might explain why future *will* is seen to be acceptable also after it won't be long before..., at least in AE, although the BE favourite still appears to be the present tense.

/Wilma


----------



## Forero

I found the following examples of _until_ and _before _clauses with subjunctive and with future in Luke Ch. 22 in the KJV:

[v. 16]_ until it be fulfilled ...
_[v. 18] _until the Kingdom of God shall come ...
_[v. 34] _before that thou shalt thrice deny ...
_[v. 61] _before the cock crow ...
_
In more modern times, at least in AE, these could be expressed as:

_Until it has been fulfilled
Until the Kingdom of God comes_ [usually]; _until ... shall ..._ [legal language]
_Before you deny ... three times_ or _before you will deny ... three times
Before the cock crows_

The present subjunctive is seldom used in modern AE and is usually replaced with present indicative, or sometimes with _should_ + infinitive.  The future can also be replaced by the present indicative for better flow or to shorten the sentence, if the meaning is clear.

The sample sentence more readily retains the future tense because:

1. The meaning is not quite the same without it, 
2. The tense of "It isn't/won't be long" does not affect the sense,
3. _Before_ and _until_ are practically synonymous in this context, and
4. Rearrangements and rephrasings of this sentence do not follow the same pattern as for sentences like "I will do X before I (will) do Y."

These reasons all stem from the cleft nature of the sample sentence.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Perhaps the baby has come back in with the bathwater. I feel, Forero, that you need to stress that you are speaking for AE, and acknowledge thereby that what you say doesn't necessarily apply for BE, in which the sample sentence - if we really are back to the OP - should not 'retain the future'.

As for your four examples from Luke, in the King James Bible:


> [v. 16]_ until it be fulfilled ..._
> [v. 18] _until the Kingdom of God shall come ..._
> [v. 34] _before that thou shalt thrice deny ..._
> [v. 61] _before the cock crow ..._


I was conscious that the subjunctive was sometimes used with _until_ and even _before_ in English up to about the 18th century. So your examples from verses 16 and 61 were not surprising. 

The interesting examples are verse 18's _until the Kingodom of God shall come_, and verse 34's _I tell thee Peter, the cocke shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrise denie that thou knowest me_, which would both be odd in modern BE, as we (the BE end of this discussion) have been arguing. I went off to the earlier translations, which formed a base for the translators of the King James Bible. This is how three of them translated the first passage: 

Wycliffe 1395_ -_ _for Y seie to you, that Y schal not drynke of the kynde of this vyne, til the rewme of God come._
Tyndale 1526 _-_ _I will not drinke of the frute of the vyne vntill the kingdome of God be come._
Coverdale 1535 _-_ _I wil not drynke of the frute of ye vyne, vntyll the kyngdome of God come._ 

All three of them use the subjunctive, so the King James translators must have made a very conscious decision to change to the future. I imagine it may have taken several hours of discussion:

King James Bible (1611) -_ For I say vnto you, I will not drinke of the fruit of the Uine, vntill the kingdome of God shall come._ 

I wonder what caused them to make this interesting change. The strange tense gives Christ's striking pronouncement an otherworldly tinge which they found attractive maybe. I'm suggesting that the choice of tense was unusual, even back in 1611.

Has this choice of tense been kept in more modern translations of the Bible into BE and AE, which is what really matters to our discussion? The answer, as far as I can see, is a pretty emphatic _No_.

BE - Revised Standard Version (1946 for Luke) - _for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes._ 
AE - New American Standard Bible (1962) - _for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes._

How about the second passage, from verse 34?

Wycliffe 1395_ -_ _Y seie to thee, Petir, the cok schal not crowe to dai, til thou thries forsake that thou knowist me._
Tyndale 1526 _-_ _I tell the Peter the cocke shall not crowe this daye tyll thou have thryse denyed yt thou knewest me.._
Coverdale 1535 _-_ _The cock shal not crowe this daye, tyll thou haue thryse denyed, yt thou knewest me._

Again the King James translators (1611) have gone out on a limb with their: _I tell thee Peter, the cocke shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrise denie that thou knowest me._

Each of the three early translations, even 1395, are closer to modern tense use in BE than is 1611.

Have modern translations in BE and AE again returned to what we, in BE, are more used to, and have been arguing is acceptable? The answer is an emphatic_ Yes, they have_.  Funnily enough, the AE version rather more than the BE one.

BE - Revised Standard Version (1946 for Luke) - _I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me._ 
AE - New American Standard Bible (1962) - _I say to you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me._


----------



## sitifan

Scientists must understand what happens inside the soybean and weed plants *before they will know* the type of chemical that will control weeds without damaging the soybean.
Agricultural Appropriations for 1965, Hearings Before ... 88-2, on H.R> 11202
A machine which can predict future girlfriends causes trouble for Nobita when he visits them* before they will know *him.
List of Doraemon (1979 TV series) episodes - Wikipedia
before they will know = before it's possible for them to know


----------

