Interesting use of "Future Perfect Tense" form

[Stephen Jones]

Steven, you've completely missed the point here,

Evidently

only a total smart arse would reply "I will" to such a question

Yea, but he is quite likely to say "Ok. I will, stop nagging me" or "I'll do it later." The form of the quesiton is exactly the same.

Incidentally last wedding I went to where they used Englsih the quesiton was
Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife?

it follows from that the same argument can be made for will (i.e. future reference comes from context, not the modal itself)? And will you accept that that means you don't have to resort to claims that will = future to account for sentences which refer to future time and contain said modal?

I suspect you're trying to get me to fall into a trap here

My view is that 'will' like other modal verbs has a variety of meanings that can only be derived from the context. Whether you want to say that in a sentence where will refers to the future such as
When the train comes into the station, the band will strike up a tune"
it is will that determines the future or not doesn't seem that important to me.
It is clear that that sentence is different from
When the train comes into the station, the band strikes up a tune.
When the train comes into the station, the band may strike up a tune.
Wnen the train comes into the station the band will have struck up a tune.
When the train comes into the station, the band must strike up a tune.
and that what makes that sentence different from these is that we have 'will' used with the base form of the verb, and that the salient fact about that main clause is that it happens in the future.

I have not said that 'wll' = future. I have said that 'will' often is used to convey the idea of the future (and of course I accept the fact that a pure future is unlikely because of the inherent uncetainty present in the idea of the future) and that you can often translate other languages future tenses by 'will'. In particular I cannot think of a single example where the Spanis future cannot be translated by 'will' though I can think of myriad examples where 'will' cannot be translated by the Spanish Future. Now if you are prepared to admit that the future tense in other languages does not primarily talk about the future I am not going to argue with you.

What I do not believe is that there is some nebulous "fundamental meaning" of "will" or "can" or "modality" and that we can or should, try to explain the mutliple uses of these words or concepts from an idea that has no apparent base either in etymology or the mind of the speaker. If Lewis suggests this, - and I am waiting for our college library to buy the booklist Larry suggested some months previously, so I can read him for myself - then I believe he is tilting at windmills.

So saying "I will carry those books for you" doesn't have different nuances from "I'll carry those books"?

I will carry those books. is contrastive stress suggesting that the other person was sceptical of the initial offer (I {b]will[/b] marry you, I really will! Believe me. All we have to do is wait for the divorce") or that the other person was reluctant to accept the offer and the second person has to insisit on it. (I will carry those books. I'm not going to let a poor, old decrepit teacher such as yourself to carry them wnen you should be in bed in a nursing home anyway.

So saying "I will carry those books for you" doesn't have different nuances from "I'll carry those books"?

Neither, 'I'll' is 'I'll'. It's the normal form

[LarryLatham]

I will carry those books. is contrastive stress suggesting that the other person was sceptical of the initial offer (I will marry you, I really will! Believe me. All we have to do is wait for the divorce") or that the other person was reluctant to accept the offer and the second person has to insisit on it. (I will carry those books. I'm not going to let a poor, old decrepit teacher such as yourself to carry them wnen you should be in bed in a nursing home anyway.

Gee, Stephen. Something we can agree on. See, we're not at odds on everything!

Larry Latham

[metal56]

If we summarise Larry's account of the basic semantic meaning of will (modal) as, Given my perception of the immediate situation, it is inevitably true that..., we can test Stephen's sentences against that:

<If my information or perception at this present moment is correct,> wnen the train comes into the station the band will have struck up a tune.

<If my information or perception at this present moment is correct,> when the train comes into the station, the band will strike up a tune"

It is clear that that sentence is different from

When the train comes into the station, the band strikes up a tune.

Yes it is. In it's future reference, that is fact based on an past habitual action (non-modal), unless you mean to use it as an imperative order or instruction.

When the train comes into the station, the band may strike up a tune.

Only different in the lack of commitment on behalf of the speaker
towards inevitable truth.

[LarryLatham]

I hope you'll permit me a small modification, Metal56, in your summary of my account of the fundamental semantic meaning of the modal will. I'd be happier with it if it read: Given my perception of the immediate situation, I believe it is true that... I don't really think the truth is inevitable, but I do have good reason to assert this truth.

When the train comes into the station, the band will strike up a tune ...is pragmatically equivalent to

If my information at this present moment is correct about what the band does when trains arrive, then when the train comes into the station, the band strikes up a tune.

We'll go dancing tomorrow...is pragmatically equivalent to

If my information about our plans and schedules is correct, then we go dancing tomorrow.

They will be asleep now...is pragmatically equivalent to

If my information about their normal bedtime habits is correct, then they are asleep now. Note that she may be up late studying for an exam, which information I am not in possession of at the moment.

Larry Latham

[LarryLatham]

I've just been watching some TV and saw one of those commercials where the announcer says (at the end): "Be sure to call the number on your screen. You'll be glad you did."

In view of my participation in this thread here, I sat musing about the meaning of will in that last sentence. The TV program was boring anyway (well, imagine that!) so I found myself going down paths not usually taken in grammatical analysis. Thought I'd try them out on you (unsuspecting guinea pigs).

The usual way of interpreting will in "You'll be glad you did" is to assume the user is placing the action in future time. (Will, after all, is the 'future tense', ain't it?). But I have another interpretation to propose, and in it the assumption of future time in the action is of secondary importance, if it is important at all. I am suggesting that the meaning of that sentence could be paraphrased something like this:

If my information about customer experienced satisfaction with this product is correct, I believe (but cannot, of course, be certain, since it is possible you will hate it) after you try it, your happiness with its performance becomes a confirmed fact, and you feel glad you called.

Now, I'll grant that all this will take some time, and that time extends into the future. But I maintain that that is not the central issue in the meaning of this sentence. Call it a side-effect, but one which, through perhaps well-meaning but misleading analyses in the past, has caught on to become the unexamined principle presumption in uses of will since future time is often a feature of many use occasions. If that is true, some grammar gurus have some rethinking to do. What seems to me the central idea is that the user cannot represent, for whatever reason given the circumstances, your 'gladness' as fact at the present moment.

What do you think? (Even if you think this is a terrible analysis, I'll be glad to hear from you, for if I am on the wrong path, I want to back away sooner, rather than later. However, if you are going to disagree, please do so with politeness and a modicum of respect.)

Larry Latham

[Stephen Jones]

You'll be glad you did

I would back away from this one Larry, If your explanations of other examples are contorted this is a maze you'll never get out of.

Moreover you are missing out on commenting on the really intersting point of the sentence. The use of 'did' to refer to future time.

[LarryLatham]

I didn't expect you'd like it, Stephen. However, you may be right in this instance. I really have to think some more about it to be sure. I remain convinced, though, that future time is not a basic semantic feature of will.

Larry Latham

By the bye, you haven't forgotten to think about those examples I requested, have you?

[metal56]

I hope you'll permit me a small modification, Metal56, in your summary of my account of the fundamental semantic meaning of the modal will. I'd be happier with it if it read: Given my perception of the immediate situation, I believe it is true that... I don't really think the truth is inevitable, but I do have good reason to assert this truth.

You are always welcome to modify my posts, Larry. Yet, I think if we lose the "inevitable" bit we go into areas of weaker modals such as "may be true". The first clause in my summary already expresses the speaker's modal stance (given my perception) which is the same as "I believe". It's like:

It is my modal (non-factual) belief that the inevitable outcome will be/was...

But I guess it's ammatter of how one reads it.

[LarryLatham]

Point taken, Metal56, and I can understand, and am sympathetic with your reasoning. And if you were talking about ...be going to constructions, or something similar, I'd be totally in agreement, because that construction does mean, I think, that one idea leads inevitably to another.

Oh oh, it's going to rain.

Rain inevitably follows, in the user's mind, when dark, fast moving clouds like this come overhead.

It's just that I think, in considering will, we are dealing with an idea about which the user implicitly does not feel certain. That's why I wanted to make my little modification.

Larry Latham

[metal56]

It's just that I think, in considering will, we are dealing with an idea about which the user implicitly does not feel certain. That's why I wanted to make my little modification.

But what then does "given my perception" mean? To me it is a clearly "modal" expression and a marker of modal factuality. If someone were to mark a proposition with such an expression, I would understand some doubt, however small, was implied. Why "forewarn" the listener otherwise?

[LarryLatham]

Yes, I see your point. But I still believe will does not lead inevitably to a conclusion, even "given my perception." It leads to a conclusion which, by using will, the speaker expressly represents as unknowable, although likely, (given my perception). When I say, "I'll be there" in response to my dental assistant calling to confirm my appointment tomorrow, my words could be paraphrased: I plan to be there; I have arranged my schedule thus, and at the moment know of no reason why I should not be there. Nevertheless, I do not (can not) know for sure, because my car may not start, I may have a medical emergency in the meantime, there may be a huge accident on the freeway, there could possibly be a terrorist attack near here and the police shut down all traffic....who knows? The only thing I can say really is that I think so at the moment.

When I say, "They'll be asleep now" referring to my friends who live in Taipei (and I am in San Diego just now), it could be paraphrased: Having consulted my watch and calculating the time in Taipei, I know it is the middle of the night there, and so I have good reason to think they are asleep, so I probably shouldn't try to call them. But I cannot know for sure. He may have heartburn and be sitting up watching TV because he can't sleep. She may be studying late for a final exam in her class tomorrow. Their young daughter may be sick, and they have gone to the emergency room at the University Hospital....who knows? The only thing I can say really is that I think so at the moment (given my perception).

Maybe it comes down to this: I can't say that I understand what a "modal fact" is, metal56. In my way of thinking, if it's modal, then it cannot be factual. "Modal fact" sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Larry Latham

[metal56]

Maybe it comes down to this: I can't say that I understand what a "modal fact" is, metal56. In my way of thinking, if it's modal, then it cannot be factual. "Modal fact" sounds like an oxymoron to me.

[/quote]


How would you run the sentence:

I'll be there tomorrow, for a fact.

There is a difference between what the speaker expresses as inevitable, based on present perception, and what is fact, the truth, the real outcome. "Will", and the pragmatics of shared knowledge, (there may be an earthquake that prevents the fulfilment of the action) save us from having to be longwinded.


Choice A:

You and know that tomorrow there may be a terrorist attack or similar that prevents me keeping my dental appointment, but if nothing like that happens i am sure to be sitting in your dentist's chair at our arranged time.


Choice B.

I'll be there tomorrow.


"Will" is about as near to the truth we can get regarding our commitment to a statement without going 100%.

[LarryLatham]

OK.

But "I am there" is uncontroversially a fact. So is "I was there." Labeling a prediction as a "fact", does not change its status as a prediction.

If a visit a psychic and she tells me: "You will be rich, and that's a fact!", I don't think I'll go out to buy a Ferrarri.

Larry Latham

[metal56]

OK.

But "I am there" is uncontroversially a fact. So is "I was there." Labeling a prediction as a "fact", does not change its status as a prediction.

If a visit a psychic and she tells me: "You will be rich, and that's a fact!", I don't think I'll go out to buy a Ferrarri.

Larry Latham

At that present moment the proposition is in the world of the factual, at least for the speaker. If your wife tells you that your mother-in-law will visit for the weekend, you better take it as a fact.

[LarryLatham]

I'd be frightened out of my boots! The old gal passed away more than ten years ago. (My wife is the youngest of 13 children!).

Seriously, metal56, I hope you know that I very much respect your view of English. But I'm afraid I can't see this particular point as you do, if you are not being playful with your comments. If my wife greeted me at the door, and said, "She's here." then I would accept that as fact. If she said, "She's coming." I would accept as fact that she was 'on the way', so to speak (either she literally is on the way, or she has made plans to come, so that we can speak of an event that has 'started' in some reasonable respect and is not yet finished). If she said, "She's going to come." then I would accept that, in my wife's view at least, mother's coming is an inevitable outcome. But if she said, "Mother will come next week.", I would accept that Mother has made those plans, but that, since it is a future event, it is not a fact, but an expectation. If my wife said, "Mother will be on her way now." I would accept that she (my wife) knows what Mother's plans are, and knows what time it is and therefore assumes (but does not know for a fact) that Mother has started her trip. If she knows that for a fact, she will say, "Mother is on her way."

Have I made any errors here?

Larry Latham