Proper English... "going to"

[Externet]

Hello.

Always had this doubt about the expression being perfect English.

 

- He is going to switch this on.

- He will switch this on.

(He is going nowhere to switch this on. The switch is right here)

 

Understandable in this case:

- We are going to eat at the restaurant tomorrow.

- We will eat at the restaurant tomorrow.

(Because the restaurant is not here, we have to go there)

 

- There is going to be elections next week.

- There will be elections next week.

( I believe 'going to' is not correct, or better said, 'not perfect')

 

Yes, both ways are commonly used, perhaps the 'going to' more often. Even when there is no actual going anywhere/moving/traveling to express future. The point is if the 'going to' is an accepted aberration or degenaration from an antique/pure/perfect 'will' expression.

 

English has no verb conjugation as other languages, or very limited. But the 'going to' smells like widely misused or from vernacular.

 

Educate me please ?

Edited September 20, 2014 by Externet

[zapatos]

I can't answer your question but I do have a couple of comments.

 

I don't think there is anything called 'perfect English'.

 

'Going' into the future is common in other languages, Spanish being an example.

[StringJunky]

As long as the original intent gets across that's all that matters really. English has evolved from several languages so the rules are a bit of a mess and lack overall consistency.

 

'Going to' is a common expression of intent. We are figuratively moving through time.

[Externet]

I can't answer your question but I do have a couple of comments.

 

I don't think there is anything called 'perfect English'.

 

'Going' into the future is common in other languages, Spanish being an example.

In spanish the 'voy a tener', 'van a ser' , and zillion more are products of bad translation from English mostly originated in translated news, sadly from ignorant translators that have deeply contaminated spanish to the point of being widely used, rarely being noticed even by people self-convinced they speak properly; to the point of wrong language being disseminated.

Correct spanish for the above is tendré; serán.

 

Hasta el irrisorio 'vamos a venir' ¿O vas o vienes ? Ninguno de ellos. The correct is 'vendremos'. Fourth grade of elementary school. And very few people notices. ----> You were not aware of such by replying Spanish being an example. Wrong.

 

Widely misusing a language does not make it correct.

[studiot]

 

Widely misusing a language does not make it correct.

 

 

You seem to have moved on from your original question as to correctness in English to deciding that the use of the auxiliary verb to go is incorrect?

 

English is characterised by the wide use of auxiliary verbs because the prefixes and suffixes are not much used as in other languages.

 

The verb to go is a valid (and as you note common) auxiliary verb.

But then 'will' is also auxiliary verb.

 

I do not know of any prohibition on any verb actually being used as an auxiliary, though that would not be common practice.

 

Edited September 20, 2014 by studiot

[Delta1212]

Widely misusing a language does not make it correct.

Actually, that is exactly how language works. So yes, it does.

 

Unless you're going to tell us that "girl" should actually refer to a young person of either gender, and everyone using it to refer exclusively to females is misusing the word.

[Ophiolite]

"Going to" is an acceptable and standard option for the future tense. As others have pointed out the "going" refers to a movement through time to a future time. Your doubts about the correctness of the usage are unfounded. (I cannot comment on the situation in Spanish, or any other language.)

[Strange]

Widely misusing a language does not make it correct.

 

Language is defined by usage. So if something is widely used then it is hard to see how you can say it is "incorrect". It may be dialectal or specialised jargon or even non-standard, but "incorrect"?

 

As to the original question, because English verbs have no future tense form a variety of auxiliary verbs are used to express future intention or action. (1)

 

You seem to be objecting to this standard usage on logical/etymological grounds (that "to go" should mean a change in position). However, there is no reason such an argument should be valid; language is not defined by logical rules (there is no logic in etymological as someone put it).

 

(1) This isn't actually necessary (2) but it is the way it is done.

 

(2) Japanese, for example, just uses the simple non-past form to express future events.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Strange

[Greg H.]

Hello.

 

- There is going to be elections next week.

 

Educate me please ?

 

There are going to be elections next week.

 

Don't ask me why, but that's how I would have said that. Growing up in the South Eastern US, you hear these expressions a lot. Where I'm from, "will" is something you read when someone dies, or a confirmation of intent to perform some future action. (i.e. Will you do this for me? Yes, I will.). As a phrase, "going to" is more often used in the sense you're describing.

 

Now that I live in the Midwest, I hear will more (and I use it more myself), instead of going to, so it seems to be a more regionally vernacular thing (like soda versus pop).

 

Keep in mind, also, that going to and will, in this context, basically have the same meaning - you can replace one with the other and, in general, the meaning conveyed doesn't change.

 

There will be elections next week.

There are going to be elections next week.

 

There will be a test tomorrow.

There is going to be a test tomorrow.

 

Will seems to be a more concise turn of phrase, but I don't think it's any more "correct", I probably wouldn't write a formal paper for a journal or a professor that way, but in every day speech, I don't think it matters on way or the other.

 

Six of one, half dozen of the other, as my father says.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Greg H.

[Delta1212]

Hello.

Always had this doubt about the expression being perfect English.

 

- He is going to switch this on.

- He will switch this on.

(He is going nowhere to switch this on. The switch is right here)

 

Understandable in this case:

- We are going to eat at the restaurant tomorrow.

- We will eat at the restaurant tomorrow.

(Because the restaurant is not here, we have to go there)

 

- There is going to be elections next week.

- There will be elections next week.

( I believe 'going to' is not correct, or better said, 'not perfect')

 

Yes, both ways are commonly used, perhaps the 'going to' more often. Even when there is no actual going anywhere/moving/traveling to express future. The point is if the 'going to' is an accepted aberration or degenaration from an antique/pure/perfect 'will' expression.

 

English has no verb conjugation as other languages, or very limited. But the 'going to' smells like widely misused or from vernacular.

 

Educate me please ?

And actually, this just occurred to me, the use of "will" as future tense is derived from the (now infrequently used) meaning of the word as something along the lines of "want." As in "willing something to happen."

 

So "We will eat at the restaurant tomorrow" would originally have meant something more along the lines of "We want to/plan to eat at the restaurant tomorrow" before eventually coming to simply mean that it was going to happen in the future.

 

There's no such thing as a "perfect" form of a language. Everything has history and most language is derived from some other word or construction that originally meant something slightly different but was adapted to a new purpose.

[studiot]

 

And actually, this just occurred to me, the use of "will" as future tense is derived from the (now infrequently used) meaning of the word as something along the lines of "want." As in "willing something to happen."

 

 

 

 

Is it?

 

So what is the future tense of the verb 'to be' ?

 

This website has some interesting thoughts.

 

http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/simplefuture.html

[Dekan]

It's interesting to note that some English verbs can express tense without any modification to the verb.

 

For example, the verb "to put".

 

"Put" can be used in the Past, Present or Future, like so:

 

Past Tense: "I'd been drinking all week, but yesterday I put the bottle down"

 

Present Tense: "You think I'm tempted to have another drink? No - watch me, as I put the bottle back in the cupboard"

 

Future Tense: " Well. I might get the bottle out again in a little while, just for a quick one. But tomorrow - I put it away for keeps"

 

Actually, the above Future Tense example does sound slightly strained.. I'm not sure why.

[Strange]

It's interesting to note that some English verbs can express tense without any modification to the verb.

 

All the examples I can think of where the past forms are the same as the present, all end in 't' (cast, hit, split, cost, let). That might be something to do with the phonology of Old English .... Or maybe coincidence.

 

 

Actually, the above Future Tense example does sound slightly strained.. I'm not sure why.

 

Because it should be "will put"?

[Delta1212]

 

 

Is it?

 

So what is the future tense of the verb 'to be' ?

 

This website has some interesting thoughts.

 

http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/simplefuture.html

Apparently there hasn't been a dedicated future tense for verbs dating all the way back to Old English. They just used the present tense with the timeframe being understood based on the context.

 

That's probably why a verb that would commonly be used to express events in the future (e.g. I will [want to] do it) got generalized to simply forming a future tense.

 

All the examples I can think of where the past forms are the same as the present, all end in 't' (cast, hit, split, cost, let). That might be something to do with the phonology of Old English .... Or maybe coincidence.

 

 

Because it should be "will put"?

Actually, I can see "Tomorrow I put down the bottle and never pick it back up" as valid usage. It's slightly different than "Tomorrow I will put down the bottle" in tone, though. It's far more declarative. "Tomorrow I put this all behind me" that sort of thing. It definitely works as a future tense but seems to be better used as referring to more metaphorical putting of things than mundane physical action.

[studiot]

Remember that some auxiliary verbs take the infinitive:

 

 

I do travel

I did travel

 

and some take the gerund

 

I will be travelling

I am travelling

I was travelling

 

The tense of 'I do travel' is interesting in the following sentence, said on a Tuesday.

 

I do travel to Birmingham every Wednesday.

 

Do it refer to the past or future (it cannot refer to the present can it?)

[Delta1212]

Remember that some auxiliary verbs take the infinitive:

 

 

I do travel

I did travel

 

and some take the gerund

 

I will be travelling

I am travelling

I was travelling

 

The tense of 'I do travel' is interesting in the following sentence, said on a Tuesday.

 

I do travel to Birmingham every Wednesday.

 

Do it refer to the past or future (it cannot refer to the present can it?)

It's present tense (compare "I did travel to Birmingham every Wednesday"), but, I believe, imperfect aspect, as it's referring to a repeated action.

[Strange]

Actually, I can see "Tomorrow I put down the bottle and never pick it back up" as valid usage. It's slightly different than "Tomorrow I will put down the bottle" in tone, though. It's far more declarative. "Tomorrow I put this all behind me" that sort of thing. It definitely works as a future tense but seems to be better used as referring to more metaphorical putting of things than mundane physical action.

 

Ah, I see what you mean. As in: "Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die."

[studiot]

 

(compare "I did travel to Birmingham every Wednesday"),

 

with

 

 

I do travel to Birmingham every Wednesday.

 

 

For comparison, I would say they can mean the exact opposite.

 

I did..... often means "in the past I did (habitually), but I have stopped now and therefore will not do so in the future."

 

Whereas

 

I do.... implies continuation of the habit into the future.

 

Since 'today' is Tuesday I cannot be travelling today (the present) so how can 'I do' be considered present?

 

Surely it is an expression of what happened in the past and what will happen in the future only?

 

Some auxiliary verbs are not used in all tenses

 

eg "I used to travel" has no present or future tenses.

 

Also we often require the context to complete or distinguish the meaning.

 

 

Tricky no?

 

Edited September 26, 2014 by studiot

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Is it?

 

So what is the future tense of the verb 'to be' ?

 

 

Shall.

[studiot]

Shall.

 

Not according to the Oxford English.

 

The word is the present tense of a verb, which has its roots in the Gothic 'skal' and the old Dutch 'zal' etc

 

Will, it seems BTW, is also the present tense of an Old Gothic verb wilja, Old Dutch wil etc

 

Thank you for getting me to look it up.

Edited September 26, 2014 by studiot

[Delta1212]

 

with

 

 

For comparison, I would say they can mean the exact opposite.

 

I did..... often means "in the past I did (habitually), but I have stopped now and therefore will not do so in the future."

 

Whereas

 

I do.... implies continuation of the habit into the future.

 

Since 'today' is Tuesday I cannot be travelling today (the present) so how can 'I do' be considered present?

 

Surely it is an expression of what happened in the past and what will happen in the future only?

 

Some auxiliary verbs are not used in all tenses

 

eg "I used to travel" has no present or future tenses.

 

Also we often require the context to complete or distinguish the meaning.

 

 

Tricky no?

 

'I do travel to Birmingham every Wednesday' means 'I am presently in the habit of traveling to Birmingham every Wednesday'

 

'I did travel to Birmingham every Wednesday' means 'In the past, I was in the habit of traveling to Birmingham every Wednesday.'

 

It's not the opposite meaning any more than any past tense verb is.

 

Incidentally, future tense if that expression would be 'I will travel to Birmingham every Wednesday' which would be 'In the future, I will be in the habit of traveling to Birmingham every Wednesday.'

 

You're really talking about aspect, rather than tense, which I realize can be confusing.

[StringJunky]

studiot, on 26 Sept 2014 - 08:20 AM, said:studiot, on 26 Sept 2014 - 08:20 AM, said:

 

 

Since 'today' is Tuesday I cannot be travelling today (the present) so how can 'I do' be considered present?

 

But it is - in that scenario - your present modus operandi which is what you are alluding to, irrespective of whether you are doing it right now.

Edited September 26, 2014 by StringJunky

[Delta1212]

 

Ah, I see what you mean. As in: "Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die."

Yes, although that seems to work with any verb I can think of rather than being something unique to 'put' or some limited subset of verbs in the way that using the present tense form as a past tense form seems to be limited to most single-syllable words that end in 't'.

 

This is interesting, I wonder if it's considered a distinct grammatical construct from the normal future tense. I'll have to look that up.

[studiot]

 

But it is - in that scenario - your present modus operandi which is what you are alluding to, irrespective of whether you are doing it right now.

 

 

But if you are not doing it right now you are not doing it period.

 

I am just trying to show the shades and subtleties of meaning that can be expressed in English, using auxiliary verbs.

 

"I do" can mean always, sometimes, once only or not at all.

 

Separating time into three tenses just doesn't cut it.

[Strange]

This is interesting, I wonder if it's considered a distinct grammatical construct from the normal future tense. I'll have to look that up.

 

It looks a little bit like the subjunctive. (But because English doesn't mark the subjunctive, it is hard to be sure.)