# going to / will have a baby



## luksjv

Hello! I have a doubt about the future forms. Actually, i dont know how to write this sentence:

She's going to have a baby.
Or
She will have a baby.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## chileno

Ella va a tener un bebé.

Ella tendrá un bebé.


----------



## donbill

luksjv said:


> Hello! I have a doubt about the future forms. Actually, i dont know how to write this sentence:
> 
> She's going to have a baby.
> Or
> She will have a baby.
> 
> Thanks in advance!



No entiendo la pregunta. Has escrito dos oraciones que significan más o menos lo mismo. La primera, "She's going to have a baby", es la más frecuente y la más conversacional. De hecho, "she will have a baby" suena un poco extraño. Dependería del contexto.


----------



## luksjv

Sí, era esa la cuestión, no sabia si escribir 'will' o 'going to' porque no encuentro diferencia entre ambos y en los libros de ingles que tengo, dice que sí hay diferencia pero no dice cual es. Gracias por las respuestas!


----------



## lancer99

"She's going to have a baby" = Va a dar a luz a un bébé (se exprime un hecho simple)
"She will have a baby" se usaría en contextos en los cuales uno quiere destacar un sentido de voluntad o desafío, como "if she manages to convince her husband that it's not a bad idea, she will have a baby"   Si llega a convencer a su marido que no sea/sería una mala idea, ella va a tener un bébé.    (desafío)

"She's going to have dessert"  Va a tomar un postre.
"She will [/She'll] have dessert as long it's not fattening." Piensa tomar un postre con tal que no la engorde  (voluntad)

Those are examples from everyday speech, and I'm sure others can explain it better


----------



## grahamcracker

"Going to" is more colloquial than "will", at least in the United States.


----------



## Istriano

In 90% of cases *going to* and *will *are interchangeable in American English, with going to (''gonna'') being more colloquial of the two:
_Tomorrow it will be warm with a mix of cloud and sun.
Tomorrow it's going to be warm with a mix of cloud and sun._
No differences at all.

*Will *is also used for volition (_going to _not used): _Do as you will; The car won't start._
and for unplanned decision made at the time of speaking _(going to_ not used): _Ding dong! Oh I'll get the door!
_
If you stick with going to (except for the two cases above) you will never sound wrong.

(Oh, *Will *is also much more frequent in if clauses;  _I will visit you, when I have money_; that will be the 3rd important usage)


In British English, there are s stricter rules about their use, just like in the case of _I must ~ I have to _(in the US English, there is
no semantic difference between_ I must _and _I have to_;_ I must _is stronger/more formal;_ I have to_ is more neutral; in British English you
are to say _I must_ when you feel the personal need/obligation and _I have to_ when other people make you do something).
 ). US (as well as Canadian English) has seen many of these neutralizations, complete neutralization of I must and I have to,and 
partial neutralization of _ the past simple_ and the _present perfect _and _will future_ and _going to future_.

I read a recent survey on will and going to usage in spoken Toronto English over the past 50 years, and the authors
found that there had been a shift from will to going to over the years, which cannot be explained with the fact that 
''people of today might prefer intention to futurity''. They also found younger people tended to use going to in the same
situations where older people (>60 years of age) preferred will. That means that the going to future invaded the usage field
of the will future, and is now used for futurity as well, and not only for intention (_I am going to buy me a new house_ = a canonical
example of going to future: intention) or evidence (_Look at the sky!It's going to rain)._

400 years ago there was no will ~ going to contrast at all. Will/Shall were used for both.
In the future, will may disappear, but who knows (in Brazilian Portuguese the simple future disappeared from the spoken language,
and now we use only ir+verb [going to future]). 


But It's never easy.
I would like someone to explain me this usage (from the Hollywood movie Borderland):
_
We are going to die!
-No, we won't!
_
I would have replied:
_-No we're not going to!_


----------



## lancer99

Istriano said:


> In 90% of cases *going to* and *will *are interchangeable in American English, with going to (''gonna'') being [the] more colloquial of the two:
> _Tomorrow it will be warm with a mix of cloud and sun.
> Tomorrow it's going to be warm with a mix of cloud and sun._
> No differences at all.



I'm going to and will (voluntad!) disagree    At least for this American English speaker, you would never say "Tomorrow it will be warm," unless you were a weatherman doing a broadcast, or were parodying stiff, formal usage -- even on the East coast, where language tends to be slightly more formal than where I grew up in the Midwest, you just wouldn't say that in ordinary discourse.

Nor would you say in American English "no differences at all," but rather, "no difference at all."




Istriano said:


> In British English, there are stricter rules about their use, just like in the case of _I must ~ I have to _(in the US English, there is
> no semantic difference between_ I must _and _I have to_;_ I must _is stronger/more formal;_ I have to_ is more neutral; in British English you
> have to say _I must_ when you feel the personal need/obligation and _I have to_ when other people make you do something).



I must and have to once again disagree -- having lived in the UK for a fairly long time, I don't recall anyone ever saying "I must....," not even upper-class twits.  Even in more formal contexts (speeches, written documents) I don't think the distinction that you mention holds true.

Istriano, I don't mean to sound unkind, but I wonder how much of what you mention is based on reading or things you've found on the net, rather than practical experience.

-R


----------



## ribran

Istriano said:


> _
> We are going to die!
> -No, we won't!
> _
> I would have replied:
> _-No we're not going to!_


----------



## Doctorr

lancer99 said:


> you would never say "Tomorrow it will be warm," unless you were a weatherman doing a broadcast


I think that by saying "tomorrow it´s going to be warm" one means that he/she is sure of the weather for tomorrow but since the weather doesn´t depend on a person nor on his/her intention (going to future), I think we should use only simple future (it´ll rain, etc.). This opinion is sustained by various English grammar books. Or, am I not right?


----------



## donbill

luksjv said:


> Sí, era esa la cuestión, no sabia si escribir 'will' o 'going to' porque no encuentro diferencia entre ambos y en los libros de ingles que tengo, dice que sí hay diferencia pero no dice cual es. Gracias por las respuestas!



Otros dos contextos:

a. *She's going to have a baby*. She and her husband are very happy about it.
b. She is determined that *she will have a baby* before she is thirty years old.


----------



## lancer99

donbill said:


> Otros dos contextos:
> 
> a. *She's going to have a baby*. She and her husband are very happy about it.
> b. She is determined that *she will have a baby* before she is thirty years old.



Contextos ya explicados, el uno un hecho simple, el otro que se trata de la voluntad.


----------



## donbill

lancer99 said:


> Contextos ya explicados, el uno un hecho simple, el otro que se trata de la voluntad.



¿voluntad?...No rechazo ese punto de vista ya que está basado en la historia del verbo, pero el contexto "b" es una expresión del futuro y no de la voluntad. Una cosa es la historia de la expresión, otra, su uso.


----------



## lancer99

No vayamos a discutir!  En la frase "se ha resuelto a tener un bébé ..." ¿no coges nada de indirecta que te indique la voluntad?

She's *going to* have a baby before she's thirty. (futuro simple)

She is determined that *she will have a baby* before she is thirty years old. (su determinación)
(in itself a poor example -- in English, you'd say "She is determined to have a baby before she's thirty," lo que subraya todavía más el sentido de voluntad.

-R


----------



## donbill

lancer99 said:


> No vayamos a discutir!  En la frase "se ha resuelto a tener un bébé ..." ¿no coges nada de indirecta que te indique la voluntad?
> 
> She's *going to* have a baby before she's thirty. (futuro simple)
> 
> She is determined that *she will have a baby* before she is thirty years old. (su determinación)
> (in itself a poor example -- in English, you'd say "She is determined to have a baby before she's thirty," lo que subraya todavía más el sentido de voluntad.
> 
> -R



Totalmente de acuerdo. Y tienes razón: mi ejemplo es malo. Hubiera sido mejor decir *"She is sure/convinced that she will have a baby by the time she is thirty years old".* Pero en español sería (más o menos): _*"Está segura de que tendrá un bebé para cuando tenga treinta años" *_y no_* "Está segura de que querrá tener un bebé...." *_

La diferencia para mí--y esto es opinión personal--es que _*'will*_' como verbo modal ha perdido casi por completo la idea de 'voluntad' o 'volición'. 

a. I / You / He / We / They _*will*_ cancel the party. (Para mí es más una cuestión del futuro que de la voluntad.)

b. Why _*will*_ the party be cancelled?
Because I / you / we / they _*will*_ it. (voluntad)
Because he / she _*wills*_ it. (voluntad)

Las oraciones de "b" no son comunes, pero creo que son correctas. En mi opinión se ha desarrollado una separación muy fuerte entre 'will' modal y 'will' voluntad. Pero repito: esto es opinión mía y no digo que sea la mejor manera de entender o de explicar el asunto. (Pero es muy divertido compartir opiniones, ¿no? )

Un saludo


----------



## Forero

luksjv said:


> Hello! I have a doubt about the future forms. Actually, i dont know how to write this sentence:
> 
> She's going to have a baby.
> Or
> She will have a baby.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


Both of these are correct forms, and the difference in meaning, if any, depends on the context. All the verbs here are ambigous (_going_, _will_, _have_).





Istriano said:


> I would like someone to explain *to* me this usage (from the Hollywood movie Borderland):
> _
> We are going to die!
> -No, we won't!
> _
> I would have replied:
> _-No we're not going to!_


The direct denial for "we are going to" is "no, we aren't (going to die)".

To me this dialog snippet suggests that the second person is not willing to respond to the actual statement made but is instead responding to a less absolute, more hypothetical "We'll die (if ...)", essentially not even recognizing (or pretending not to recognize) the full force of the first person's statement.


----------



## donbill

Istriano, your question is a good one. I find the response to be somewhat strange. If someone said to me, "We're going to die!", I'd respond, "No, we're not!"

"No, we won't" seems to me to be a better response for "We'll die" than for "We're going to die." I agree with Forero that there seems to be a disconnect.


----------



## luksjv

¡Muchas gracias a todos, muy buenos argumentos que me ayudaron a descifrar esa duda que tenía!


----------



## lancer99

donbill, in the end, much as it pains me to do so  , I have to agree that you're right.

My theory was that when used to express will or a challenge, the word "will" was more acceptable in conversational, non-formal English, but in the end, I think it all has to do with register, and not at all to do with any sense of will.

"She's gonna have a baby."
"Even if her husband doesn't want to, she's gonna have a baby."
Both seem like normal, conversational English, with no distinction between simple future and any 'voluntad' on her part.

"She will have a baby."
"Even if her husband doesn't want to, she will have a baby."
Both much more formal -- and again, no distinction.

Thanks for making me think about things like this, which I haven't considered since taking linguistics classes many years ago...how many (years, not classes), I won't say  

-R


----------



## duvija

¿No les gustaría releer el #2? Esas dos cláusulas NO significan lo mismo. 
"Ella tendrá un bebé" no funciona en la vida real. Sí, con los agregados que Uds. dieron (aunque su marido no quiera)/


----------



## inib

lancer99 said:


> I must and have to once again disagree -- having lived in the UK for a fairly long time, I don't recall anyone ever saying "I must....," not even upper-class twits. Even in more formal contexts (speeches, written documents) I don't think the distinction that you mention holds true.
> 
> 
> 
> -R


I'm British, very likely a twit, but certainly not upper-class (or trying to emulate them), and I quite normally say "I must..." when I feel I have the moral obligation of doing something, or need to discipline myself to do it. Eg: Tomorrow I really must start writing my Christmas cards.
(No offence taken, but usage DOES vary  )
Equally, I use "will" for predictions (when there is no evidence in the present, and no volition involved).


----------



## germanbz

Hello everyone.
I have another question about the use of *will *or *going to*

I mean. Imagine that anyone asks me this question:  _*What are you doing tonight?*_

I know that when we are talking about _intentions_, we use *going to*...but

If I answer: _*Well, nothing special, I think *I'll start to prepare dinner just about eight, like everyday, and then after that I think I'll be studying for a while._

In fact, both, preparing dinner and studying, are something that I usually have everyday, and I have the *intention *to do that tonight as well. Then it is a "intention" (going to?). 
But when you put something like; "_*well, I think...*_." at the beginning of the sentence, it sounds (to me) like an instantaneous decision, even though it is an habitual action.

Then, I'll be very grateful, if you could tell me what's the correct form. And of course, I apologize for the  mistakes.
Thank you in advance.


----------



## Forero

germanbz said:


> Hello everyone.
> I have another question about the use of *will *or *going to*
> 
> I mean. Imagine that anyone asks me this question:  _*What are you doing tonight?*_
> 
> I know that when we are talking about _intentions_, we use *going to*...but
> 
> If I answer: _*Well, nothing special, I think *I'll start to prepare dinner just about eight, like everyday, and then after that I think I'll be studying for a while._
> 
> In fact, both, preparing dinner and studying, are something that I usually have everyday, and I have the *intention *to do that tonight as well. Then it is a "intention" (going to?).
> But when you put something like; "_*well, I think...*_." at the beginning of the sentence, it sounds (to me) like an instantaneous decision, even though it is an habitual action.
> 
> Then, I'll be very grateful, if you could tell me what's the correct form. And of course, I apologize for the  mistakes.
> Thank you in advance.


Both forms are valid:

_I think I'm going to start preparing dinner at about eight, as usual.
I think I'll start preparing dinner at about eight, as usual._

But the original sentence is quite long and would seem even longer with _going to_. "I'm going to start to prepare" would have two _to_ infinitives, and "I'm going to be studying" would have nested _be_ + _-ing_ forms, which makes these versions awkward but not wrong.

To "be studying for a while" sounds more like an obligation than an intention. Why not "I'll study for a while" or "I'm going to study for a while"?


----------



## lancer99

inib said:


> I'm British, very likely a twit, but certainly not upper-class (or trying to emulate them), and I quite normally say "I must..." when I feel I have the moral obligation of doing something, or need to discipline myself to do it. Eg: Tomorrow I really must start writing my Christmas cards.
> (No offence taken, but usage DOES vary  )
> Equally, I use "will" for predictions (when there is no evidence in the present, and no volition involved).



Sorry, I should have been more careful in my response.  What I should have said is that I don't recall anyone ever using "I must....," rather than "I have to..." _to begin a sentence_, other than in contexts where it was clearly meant as humor ("I must away now, gents.") Whereas what you quoted sounds perfectly normal for a UK speaker to these ears.  Then again, I haven't lived in the UK for over a decade, so maybe it's just a question of faulty memory. 

 In the U.S., even in that context, we'd probably say, "Tomorrow I really have to start writing my Xmas cards."   (Which I say to myself every year, day after day, from around Thanksgiving to early January    )


----------



## waggledook

I will often (will used for habitual actions


----------



## inib

lancer99 said:


> Sorry, I should have been more careful in my response. What I should have said is that I don't recall anyone ever using "I must....," rather than "I have to..." _to begin a sentence_, other than in contexts where it was clearly meant as humor ("I must away now, gents.") Whereas what you quoted sounds perfectly normal for a UK speaker to these ears. Then again, I haven't lived in the UK for over a decade, so maybe it's just a question of faulty memory.
> 
> In the U.S., even in that context, we'd probably say, "Tomorrow I really have to start writing my Xmas cards." (Which I say to myself every year, day after day, from around Thanksgiving to early January  )


Don't worry, lancer. 
I only wrote that example because I was so chuffed with myself for having done them on time, for the first time in I don't know how many years!


----------



## lancer99

You're a better man than me, dear sir!


----------



## luo.mai

Sometimes "will" and "going to" are interchangeable; other times they are not.

 If something is imminent or on its way, use "going to".

     E.g. We're on the road, and suddenly an oncoming truck crosses the center line: "We're going to crash!" (Not "We will crash!" )

If you're just deciding something now, use "will".

     E.g. "I'd rather not walk home in the rain."
           "Don't worry, I'll give you a ride."


----------



## lancer99

luo.mai said:


> If something is imminent or on its way, use "going to".



"I'll give you a hand, but only for a couple of minutes."



luo.mai said:


> If you're just deciding something now, use "will".



"I'm gonna get really pissed off if you keep changing the channel."


----------



## inib

lancer99 said:


> You're a better man than me, dear sir!


Madam, if you please 
I coincide with Luo.mai and I think "I'll give you a hand..." in most cases would be a spontaneous decision, uttered in reply to someone's saying they need help.


----------



## luo.mai

lancer99 said:


> "I'll give you a hand, but only for a couple of minutes."


This would fall under something you're just deciding (in response to a request for help).



lancer99 said:


> "I'm gonna get really pissed off if you keep changing the channel."


You're not deciding to get pissed off; you're saying it'll be an inevitable consequence of the other person's actions. For things that are inevitable, we use "going to".


----------



## lancer99

luo.mai said:


> Sometimes "will" and "going to" are interchangeable; other times they are not.
> 
> If something is imminent or on its way, use "going to".
> 
> E.g. We're on the road, and suddenly an oncoming truck crosses the center line: "We're going to crash!" (Not "We will crash!" )
> 
> If you're just deciding something now, use "will".
> 
> E.g. "I'd rather not walk home in the rain."
> "Don't worry, I'll give you a ride."



I take your points, which I think are all well-observed.
Can you come up with another rule to explain "The candidates will be chosen by a proportional vote count?"

Thanks,
-R


----------



## luo.mai

lancer99 said:


> Can you come up with another rule to explain "The candidates will be chosen by a proportional vote count?"


Good question. I'd file this under formal vs. conversational register, since we use "will" a lot more than "going to" in writing. The language of this sentence is quite formal (note the passive "be chosen by," and the phrase "proportional vote count").

We could express the same idea with "going to", and it would sound perfectly normal in a more conversational style:

"How are they going to choose the candidates?"
"They're going to count the votes." 

On the other hand, "The candidates are going to be chosen by a proportional vote count" just doesn't roll off the tongue. Still, it's not grammatically wrong.


----------



## Istriano

> English has two main verb signals of future time: (1) _will _or _shall _(the modal
> future) and (2)_ be going to _(the periphrastic future). In general, British favors _will_
> or _shall _, and American_ be going to_ , notably in American conversation and fiction
> (LGSWE 488). The_ be going to_ future is more recent and is still expanding in both
> varieties (Mair 1997).


*British or American English?* by John Algeo (University of Georgia),_ Cambridge University Press_


----------



## page

I know this is an old thread. Anyway,  what about she's having a baby. Wouldn't it work instead of going to have? 

I've heard she is having/going to have a baby in June.


----------



## geostan

The bottom line for me is that *She's going to have a baby* is the normal sentence. When you devise a context where *intention* is the meaning, then *She will have a baby* is justified. This latter situation is far less common.


----------



## page

Would you say that "she is having a baby" is as common as "she's going to have a baby?


----------



## geostan

Possibly. I have no statistics for such a comparison. Of course one difference is that *She's having a baby* could mean that she is in the hospital about to give birth, but it could also be an alternative to *She's going to have a baby*, which is merely an announcement of something the happy couple has just learned.


----------



## page

Thank you. I agree with you but I like having a native speaker's point of view.


----------



## chileno

page said:


> Thank you. I agree with you but I like having a native speaker's point of view.



I agree with geostan.

Where do you think geostan is from?


----------



## duvija

chileno said:


> I agree with geostan.
> 
> Where do you think geostan is from?



Planet Earth. It says so in his name... 

But "is merely an announcement of something the happy couple has just learned." doesn't need to be 'happy'...


----------



## Doctorr

Originally Posted by *lancer99* 


you would never say "Tomorrow it will be warm," unless you were a weatherman doing a broadcast



I think that by saying "tomorrow it´s going to be warm" one means that he/she is sure of the weather for tomorrow but since the weather doesn´t depend on a person nor on his/her intention (going to future), I think we should use only simple future (it´ll rain, etc.). This opinion is sustained by various English grammar books. Or, am I not right?


----------

