Why do we have no future?

[bolton]

Dear Mr and Mrs Language Persons:

In 'I'm going to the park and then I'm going to the store' we use future words twice, but in 'I'm going to the store after I go to the park' usually only once. Why?

[fluffyhamster]

In 'I'm going to the park and then I'm going to the store' we use future words twice, but in 'I'm going to the store after I go to the park' usually only once. Why?

Swan for example, in his Practical English Usage, has an entry (number 556 in the Second edition) headed 'Tense simplication in subordinate clauses', which is what "I'm going to the store after (I go to/I have been or gone to/going to) the park" is and involves. The main thrust is that 'If the main verb of a sentence makes it clear what kind of time the speaker is talking about, it is not always necessary for the same time/form to be indicated again (or quite so fully) in subordinate clauses' (compare, as I'm sure you already have, "I'm going to the store ?/*after I'm going to the park"). Obviously the simplification makes the two clauses' relationship to each other easier to process and/or the second sound less strangely repetitive; it helps achieve "communicative focus".

"I'm going to the park and/and then/then ((I'm going) to) the store" meanwhile is a pair of co-ordinate clauses (but latter may be ellipted down to a core noun, from its ordering implicitly the second in line to be visited - wonder what the potential pair of resulting nouns would then form/be called? ); just making sure you're clear on related terminology. This, or perhaps the reversed/prepositional phrase core-initial "After (ellipted stuff about me going to?) the park, I'm going to the store", seems to my mind the best way of expressing things, because the events follow in clear and logical event or rather place-sequential order.

Just out of interest, here's a Collins COBUILD English Grammar example (that I've italicized) that might initially appear to contradict the above, but bear in mind that here we're talking more about "circumstances" than "sequence". (I guess in real life, the subordinate circumstances could be ellipted right down or omitted altogether e.g. a prison warden, commenting to a visitor about an inmate: "He's written a lot of poetry [(whilst (he's been)) here (=in this prison at least, obviously)]".

5.111 Subordinate time clauses

Subordinate time clauses can often be used instead of prepositional phrases to indicate when an event occurs.

For example, instead of saying `He was killed in a car accident four years after their marriage', you could say `He was killed in a car accident four years after they were married'.

Or, instead of saying `During his stay in prison, he has written many essays and poems', you could say `While he has been in prison, he has written many essays and poems'.

It is often possible or preferable to use a subordinate clause introduced by `before' or `after' to indicate the order or simultaneity of a number of events.

Subordinate time clauses are explained fully in paragraphs 8.8 to 8.24.