Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: Doppio futuro

Lo so che mi pagano per saperle 'ste cose ma secondo voi la frase :
We won't be able to come to London as we will have to play almost every
night è corretta ?
Io dico di no perchè c'è un doppio futuro e mi verrebe di trasformarla in
We won't be able to come to London as we have to play almost every night .
Dico stronzate ?
Se questo è il caso , a differenza di molti miei colleghi, sono pronto a
rimettere il mio mandato nelle mani della mia preside
che ha ,for good measure, un marito baronetto di Manchester.
Let me know !
My future depends on you ,my mates
Yours
Sal

Dico stronzate ?
This also looks ok. But what are you trying to say?
We can't come because we have to ...
We can't come because we'll have to ... (this can imply: if we came we would have to ...)
We won't be able to come because we have to ...
We won't be able to come because we'll have to ...
We aren't going to be able to come because we'll be going to have to ...
(This sounds more like a double future)
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[

 (This sounds more like a double future)
<I got mixed up .
You CANNOT have a future tense in an if clause or a time clause but I guess
you can use one in a sentence which begins by
AS.
How are they called ?
Explicatives ?
Yours
Sal

Sal
Sorry, I don't know know if they're called anything special.
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[


 In effect, I've never studied this type of "if clause". When you start with
IF you should use simple present, ex.:
I'll teach you to dance if you teach me to sing.
If you see my secretary she will give you the information.
Have I studied right? Are there other meanings or grammar rules?
Bye-bye
Anto

 If you will see my secretary, she'll give you the information.
<Any grammar of the English language will tell that you cannot have a future
tense in an if clause.
   I asked an American friend of mine this morning and she said your
sentences were incorrect.
   With regard to the second sentence it might be right if you consider the
"will " as the willingness of the person to see the secretary.
I do not know what else to think.
Yours
Sal

 a future tense in an if clause.
I am having trouble finding this 'rule'.
I did find this: "After a future tense in the main sentence, the verb in
a following independent clause is in the present: I'll go to that play
as soon as it is (not 'will be') on."
But further on it states:
"The subjunctive should not be used in such sentences when only
condition or doubt is expressed and there is some likelihood that the
matter may be realised. You should say: 'If he lowers the price, I'll
accept.'"  
The 'will' is determination rather than future, maybe.
Cheers,
Loki
-- 


Dear Loki and Sal (and of course the other Realmers),
On my Michael Swan's grammar I found that the general rule is that we
avoid using two future tenses in the same sentence. Nonetheless there are
a few cases in which we do have two 'futures', one of these is when we
have clauses starting or containing words such as: because, although, so
that, as (meaning because). I guess this is the case you, Sal, were
looking for.
Hope this helps.
CC

 The 'will' is determination rather than future, maybe.
No maybes.
This will settle the matter once and for all :
From  A practical English Grammar by A.J.Thompson and A.V.Martinet OUP 1980
 The future tense is used with clauses of condition, time and sometimes
purpose.
  If I drop this glass it will break
  When it gets warmer the snow will start to melt .
  Note that in an if-clause or a time clause we don't use the future
  tense even when the meaning is future, e.g.:
  It will get warmer soon but When it gets warmer . .
   He will probably be late but If he is late .
Conditional sentences type 1: probable
  The verb in the if-clause is in the present tense; the verb in the  main
clause is in the future tense. It doesn't matter which comes  first.
 If he runs he'll get there in time.
 The cat will scratch you if you pull her tail.
 This type of sentence implies that the action in the if-clause is quite
probable.
Note that the meaning here is present or future, but the verb in the
if-clause is in a present, not a future tense. if + will/would is only
possible with certain special meanings. (See section 218.)
Section   218
if you will/would is often used in polite requests. would is the more polite
form.
If you will/would wait a moment I'll see if Mr Jones is free (please wait).
1 would be very grateful if you would make the arrangements for me.
if you will/would + infinitive is often used alone when the request is one
which would normally be made in the circumstances. The speaker assumes that
the other person will comply as a matter of course.
If you'd fill up this form.
(in a hotel) If you'd just sign the register.
(in a shop) If you'd put your address on the back of the cheque.
(in a classroom) If you'd open your books.
 if +will/would can be used with all persons to indicate willingness: If
he'll listen to me I'll be able to help him= If he is willing to listen . .
.
If Tom would tell me what he wants for his dinner, I'd cook it for him. (The
speaker implies that Tom is unwilling to tell her.)
won't used in this way can mean `refuse':
If he won't listen to me I can't help him= If he is unwilling to listen/If
he refuses to listen . . .
If they won't accept a cheque we'll have to pay cash = If they refuse to
accept . . .
 will can be used to express obstinate insistence:
If you will play the drums all night no wonder the neighbours complain = If
you insist on playing . . .
Yours
Sal

, 
pappa...@libero.it
 says...

Your English Grammars are wrong in this respect.
Your American friend may be talking about American English, which I don't speak.
If you will give me the credit for knowing how to formulate a correct sentence
in the native language which I've spoken for more than 40 years, I might be able
to help clarify further why your other sources are wrong.
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[[

, 
anto...@agitalia.it
 says...

It is more common in these examples not to use the future tense; this does not
make the use of the future tense wrong, or even strange.
The problem with Grammars is that they cannot encompass all possible constructions.
They are necessarily reductive. They give rules; and, as we know, there are always
cases were rules are broken. 
There is certainly nothing wrong with formulating your own sentences in accordance
with what a grammar prescribes, but be aware that native speakers probably have not
read these grammars for non-native speakers, and manage to speak quite fluently and
correctly without them.
It is the task of the writer of the grammar book to describe the language of the
native speaker, not to explain to a non-native speaker how a native speaker should 
speak.
"If you'll just listen to me, you might learn something".
This sentence, for example, is more common *with* the future tense.
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[[

If you will only do what I tell you there will be no problems!
Kevin in San Francisco
Raymot wrote in message <3a93c2f8@grissom>...


you insist on playing . . .
Oooh! NOW I've understood it! Yes, I've perfectly understood I'll never
understand these rules and how to apply them. Before to read them, I
thought I knew, roughly, how to write an understable (if not correct) "if
clause", but now I know I'll never know it.
Well, I think I'll "insist on" write whatever will seem correct (or at
least understandable) to me, for I can't do anything other than that (or
stay still). If you'll not understand, please tell me and I'll try to
explain.
Ciao.

 
Ahem...
Mary


<Please clarify.
  Did not want to doubt your word.
I hope you have read what Thomson and Martinet (THe Bible ) say.
If you prove them wrong I will drown myself in the river Adige.
There will be no meaning whatsoever left in my life.
I will be more than happy to widen my knowledge of the lingo though.
Yours
Sal

, 
pappa...@libero.it
 says...


My above sentence is perfectly correct and contradicts your grammar.
No, I haven't read Thomson and Martinet, and I don't intend to.
If Messers Thomson or Martinet wish to leave out various subtleties
of the language, I'm sure it's because not every possible construction
can be explained and still retain clarity.
See my other post on this subject.
If it's any consolation, I've had similar problems with my Italian grammars
saying one thing and people like Manzini, Moravia etc. and ordinary Italians
saying another. It's simply something we need to live with.
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[[

saying another. It's simply something we need to live with.
Manzoni too.
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[

 I hope you have read what Thomson and Martinet (THe Bible ) say.
Glad to read it's a bible... pardon, THE bible!
I have studied from it at University, and found it very good.
Though, Raymot is a native speaker (educated, I suppose) and...actually what
he says about language in use is true..
 Ai posteri

 OUP 1980
My grammar was 1984 :-))) (SH Burton mastering English grammar),
and it legitimised this structure: 'If he lowers the price, I'll
accept.'"
"Grammar cannot explain everything. The English language is living,
changing, flexible. Some of its nimble improvisations defy precise
explanations." (Burton)
Of course some grammars try to make it fit a straightjacket left in the
past.
Cheers,
Loki
-- 

 CC
Which future? continuous, continuous in the past, future perfect, future
perfect in the past, future simple, future or simple in the past? :-)))
All I know is I say: "If you do x, I'll do y." "If you'll do x, I'll
consider doing y."
cheers,
Loki
-- 

 happy to widen my knowledge of the lingo though.
You do realise that martinet also means "strict disciplinarian". Perhaps
that coloured the author's exposition on grammar. 
Loki
-- 

, scriveva:

Joke intended.
Ciao.

Manzoni too.
Not a prob, Ray :-)
A well-known XX-century Italian author and scholar is indeed called
Gianna Manzini, her best known work "La sparviera", published 1957.
-- 
Isa
Work like you don't need money,
Love like you've never been hurt,
And dance like no one's watching
http://web.tiscalinet.it/alfabeto_auschwitz/

 This sentence, for example, is more common *with* the future tense.
   You are perfectly right.
<That is what any two bit grammar book will say .
   The examples I have included from Thomson and Martinet prove you right.
So nobody was contradicting you.
When the meaning is future you are not supposed to use the future in an if
clause.
If you do I am happy to learn it and from now on  I will tell my students
that one of the ground rules of the English language as we used to know it
has fallen to the ground.
Thanks
Sal

 Yeah right ;-)
<<<It was a figure of speech .
       I know languages are living creatures.
       I (try to) teach one !
Yours
Sal

 can be explained and still retain clarity.
I agree that the sentence is correct (if the situation warrants the awkward
construction) but I don't agree that it contradicts the section of grammar
posted by Salvatore. I am not familiar with Thomson and Martinet but it appears
to me from reading the section posted that their description is comprehensive
and explains all of the examples put forth in this thread. In general, it is
much more common to use the present tense when referring to the future in an
"if" clause. The exceptions tend to be situations when emphasis or willingness
are implied.
Regarding Salvatore's initial post, the use of "as" does make a difference. The
sentence is correct if the "play almost every night" refers to the time period
in London. ("We won't be able to come to London as we will have to play almost
every night.") If you write "We won't be able to come to London as we have to
play almost every night" the meaning is different. In this sentence, the "play
every night" refers to the present time and location. That is, the obligation to
play almost every night makes our lamenting musician (or perhaps chronic bridge
player?) unable to travel to London.
The distinction remains. He won't be able to come because if he comes to London
he will have to play almost every night? Or, he won't be able to go because he
plays almost every night and if he comes to London he won't be able to play in
his current location?
In fact, more interesting to me is the use of "come" rather than "go." However,
I believe that the choice of verb according to "subjective perspective" is the
same in Italian as in English. Italian madrelingua enlighten me if I'm mistaken
on this point.
Ciao,
Ron
USA

 used to know it has fallen to the ground.
And another one bites the dust... ;-)  (now what was that song? ...)
Did you know that some of the rules were imposed a few hundred years ago
by a few martinet grammarians. 
The word 'they', used as a pronoun instead of 'he' or 'she', was one of
the victims. But it has made it's comeback. :-) 
Cheers,
Loki
-- 

        I (try to) teach one !
And very good at it too, I'm sure, O Mighty Slangmeister. :-)
cheers,
Loki
-- 

slim 175 page grammar.
I think these different types of conditionals has sprung up out of Teaching
English as A Foreign Language. I wasn't familiar with it either until I read
grammars for non-native speakers. It's not a bad concept though.
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[[[[

perfect in the past, future simple, future or simple in the past? :-)))
Dear Loki, I'm sorry I've been quite imprecise. I'll quote what I found in
Swan's grammar, section Tense simplification:
(quote)
It is well known that we generally use the present instead of the future
after 'if' and conjunctions of time such as 'when', 'as soon as', 'after',
'before', 'while', and 'until'.
Ex. - I'll be home before you arrive.
In fact the rule is much more general than this, we use the present instead
of the future in most subordinate clauses, if the main verb of the sentence
is future (or has a future meaning). The present is used in these cases
(snip) also after relative pronouns, after 'as', 'than', whether', where'
and in reported speech.
In other words, if the whole of the sentence is about the future, one future
tense is usually enough to show this.
(snip)
These rules do not apply to co-ordinate clauses (introduced by 'and', 'but',
'or', 'so'), or to clauses introduced by 'because', 'although', 'since',
'as' (meaning because), and 'so that'.
Ex. - She will arrive on Sunday and she will probably stay till Tuesday
I won't mind the heat in Greece because I won't have to move about much.
(quote)
Sorry I didn't write earlier, h.t.h.
Ciao
CC