Professor Baxter (will be giving/ is giving) another lecture next week.

[le avocado]

Hi everybody,
My book writes about future continuous (will be Ving) like this:

*Quote from the book:
The future progressive is often used to refer to future events which are fixed or decided, or which are expected to happen in the normal course of events.

Ex:
1.Professor Baxter will be giving another lecture on Roman glass-making at the same time next week.
2.I'll be seeing you one o f these days, I expect.

This is useful if we want to show that we are not talking about making decisions, but about things that will happen ‘anyway’.
3.‘Shall I pick up the laundry for you?’ ‘Oh, no, don’t make a special journey.’
‘It’s OK. I'll be going to the shops anyway.’

My questions :
1.As I have learned, The present continuous form (be Ving) also talk about fixed plans, so what is the difference between these sentences?

a. Professor Baxter will be giving another lecture on Roman glass-making at the same time next week.
==>This refers and emphasis to a future event which will be in progress at some point in the future
b. Professor Baxter is giving another lecture on Roman glass-making at the same time next week.
==>This refers and emphasis to a fixed plan of professor Baxter. Right?

In the real life, people use these 2 sentences interchangeably without any difference in the meaning. Right?


2.
‘Shall I pick up the laundry for you?’ ‘Oh, no, don’t make a special journey.’
‘It’s OK. I'll be going to the shops anyway.’

What is the difference between these sentences?
1. It’s OK. I'll be going to the shops anyway.
2.It’s OK. I am going to the shops anyway.

Many thanks in advance.

 

[Uncle Jack]

In (1), they are pretty much interchangeable, where the future continuous version is still clear that lecture has already been arranged. However in another situation, the present continuous can be used to make it clear that all the arrangements have been made. The future continuous (like continuous forms in general) puts some focus onto when the action takes place.

In (2), I think the present continuous is better, just because the conversation appears to be about what the second person is just about to do, rather than what they will be doing at some (unspecified) time in the future. Your book is correct, though, that if the future tense is appropriate, then the future continuous makes it clear that the action is something that was already going to take place.

 

[lingobingo]

You already have all this explained, so it’s difficult to know what else you want us to tell you about it.

It’s often possible to use either I’m or I’ll be [having/doing something or going somewhere] to indicate a current plan for a later action. In general, we don’t use will unless there’s a particular reason to do so. It’s probably true that the present progressive is more informal/natural and the future progressive more formal. But there’s no rule. It’s mostly a matter of context, as ever.

 

[le avocado]

then the future continuous makes it clear that the action is something that was already going to take place.

Hi Uncle Jack
I don't understand the meaning of this sentence. Could you tell me more about this?
"...that was already going to take place.==> " was already going" means that something was happening in the past. But we are talking about the future. I am confused about this.

 

[Uncle Jack]

"...that was already going to take place.==> " was already going" means that something was happening in the past. But we are talking about the future. I am confused about this.

The decision about it taking place was made in the past. At some point in the past you could say "the thing is going to happen".

"Was going to happen" (and variations with other verbs) is a form of future in the past, and uses the past as a reference point. It is used in many situations. Here it is used to consider the future from the perspective of the past. In my post, I wanted to distinguish between an action where the decision had already been made and one that had only that minute been decided upon.

​

A: Shall I drive you to town tomorrow?​

B: Oh, no, don’t make a special journey.​

A: It’s OK. I'll be going to the shops anyway. [A made the decision to do this in the past]​

​

A: Shall I drive you to town tomorrow?​

B: Oh, no, don’t make a special journey.​

A: It’s OK. I'll do my shopping. [A has probably only just decided to do this]​

 

[lingobingo]

I don't understand the meaning of this sentence. Could you tell me more about this?
"...that was already going to take place.==> " was already going" means that something was happening in the past. But we are talking about the future. I am confused about this.

By lumping those bold words together, you’re misreading the statement. The relevant construction is: was [already] going to [happen].

To be going to do/be something is a structure indicating a future action or event. For example, “the event is going to take place” means that it will do so in the near future. You can also report that later by saying that it was going to take place. In other words, “We already knew that it was going to take place” or “I knew that {it was already going to happen}”.

 

[le avocado]

Thanks so much, Uncle Jack and Lingobingo

 

[le avocado]

Hi all,
I have another similar situation.
If a guest have stayed longer than you wanted, and you don't know when they are leaving, you might ask:

1 Will you be staying with us again tonight?
2. Are you staying with us again tonight?

In this situation, (1) is more formal than (2), I can use either. Right?

 

[lingobingo]

There’s not much difference. Version 1 is probably more idiomatic in this context, but it does have a nuance of hoping the answer is no!

 

[le avocado]

Does the future continuous always talk about a fixed plan/ arrangement?
Are there any situations in which the future continuous doesn’t imply a fixed plan/ arrangement?

I have found this example, in this example, the future continuous doesn’t imply an fixed plan/ arrangement:

At a restaurant:
Me: I won’t be using this fork because I don’t know how to use it. I get used to with chopsticks. Pls take it away.
The waiter: Yes. ( the he take it away )

As I see on the example above, no fixed or arranged plan there.

But my grammar book only says that future continuous refers to fixed/ planned arrangements.

Can you make me more clear at this point?

Thanks so much.

 

[lingobingo]

But my grammar book only says that future continuous refers to fixed/ planned arrangements.

Does your book say that this is the only way it’s used, or that it can be used for that purpose? Grammar books can only give guidelines about this sort of usage, not rules.

Obviously you don’t need to add the continuous/progressive aspect to describe an action or event that’s due to take place at a future time or date.

The coach leaves/is due to leave/will leave/will be leaving at 4.30 pm sharp. ​

Cambridge states that the future continuous is used for “temporary actions and events that will be in progress at a particular time in the future”, which is perhaps a better explanation of your fork example.

 

[le avocado]

Does your book say that this is the only way it’s used, or that it can be used for that purpose? Grammar books can only give guidelines about this sort of usage, not rules.

Obviously you don’t need to add the continuous/progressive aspect to describe an action or event that’s due to take place at a future time or date.

The coach leaves/is due to leave/will leave/will be leaving at 4.30 pm sharp. ​

Cambridge states that the future continuous is used for “temporary actions and events that will be in progress at a particular time in the future”, which is perhaps a better explanation of your fork example.

Thanks so much, lingobingo
For the fork example, I think it fits the use of the future continuous as an event that will be in progress at a particular time in the future (particular time here is during the meal). Right?

For the fork example, is it correct if I use this sentence:

I won’t use this fork because I don’t know how to use it. I get used to with chopsticks. Pls take it away.

 

[lingobingo]

Yes, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t say that (deleting “use it”).

But the next sentence doesn’t make sense. I thnk you mean I’m used to using chopsticks?

 

[le avocado]

But the next sentence doesn’t make sense. I thnk you mean I’m used to using chopsticks?

I think that " I get used to" using chopsticks= "I am used to" using chopsticks.
But It seems that I am wrong.

For the fork example, I think it fits the use of the future continuous as an event that will be in progress at a particular time in the future (particular time here is during the meal). Right?

Can I have your opinion on this?

 

[lingobingo]

The simple present usually either denotes a habitual action or does no more than state a simple fact. So “I get used to [something]” is an unlikely thing to say, unless you’re relating it to a particular situation (explaining why you [habitually] do that). It implies: this is what happens when/if …………

And I see no sense whatsoever in trying to categorise a simple statement like “I won’t be using this fork, thank you” (meaning nothing more than that you don’t need it) as a reference to a planned future event!

 

[le avocado]

Thanks very much, lingobingo.

 

[le avocado]

Hi lingobingo,
I would like to ask another question related to the fork example:
For this situation, I can use either sentences below. Right?

1.I won’t be using this fork, thank you. (The future progressive tense).
2.I won't use this fork, thank you. (The future simple tense).
3.I am not going to use this fork, thank you. (be going to).
4.I am not using this fork, thank you ( The present progressive tense).

 

[Uncle Jack]

1.I won’t be using this fork, thank you. (The future progressive tense).
2.I won't use this fork, thank you. (The future simple tense).
3.I am not going to use this fork, thank you. (be going to).
4.I am not using this fork, thank you ( The present progressive tense).

(1) is the obvious sentences. The focus is on doing the action itself (hence the continuous form) and it is in the future (hence the future tense) - at least, it is in the future if you say this before any food has been brought to the table.
(2) is possible. It is hard to explain why (1) is better, but it is.
(3) is the other obvious sentence. Although this is really the equivalent of sentence (2), the "going to" simple future has an element of the future continuous (and also of the present continuous, although that is not relevant here), and is used in more situations than the simple "will" future. One of the reasons might be that the "going to" future continuous (which is also possible here) is such a mouthful that we sometimes use the "going to" simple future instead.
(4) does not really fit unless you are already eating. Not using the fork is not part of a pre-arranged plan.

 

[le avocado]

(1) is the obvious sentences. The focus is on doing the action itself (hence the continuous form) and it is in the future (hence the future tense) - at least, it is in the future if you say this before any food has been brought to the table.
(2) is possible. It is hard to explain why (1) is better, but it is.
(3) is the other obvious sentence. Although this is really the equivalent of sentence (2), the "going to" simple future has an element of the future continuous (and also of the present continuous, although that is not relevant here), and is used in more situations than the simple "will" future. One of the reasons might be that the "going to" future continuous (which is also possible here) is such a mouthful that we sometimes use the "going to" simple future instead.
(4) does not really fit unless you are already eating. Not using the fork is not part of a pre-arranged plan.

Hi Uncle Jack,
Thanks so much for your help.

As I see, There are some situations, we can use either simple progressive tense or the future progressive tense for pre-arranged plan. For example:
I ask my friend:
(1)Are you bringing your girl friend to tonight party?
(2)Will you be bringing your girl friend to tonight party?

I think that for this situation, both sentences can be used. Right?

But, in some situation, as in my fork situation, the future progressive tense is the most suitable tense.

 

[Uncle Jack]

Questions and statements are different. When asking a question, you need to make assumptions about what the situation is. If you expect the other person to have already made their plans which cannot now be changed, and you want to ask about what these planse are, then use the present continuous. If, however, you aren't sure whether or not the other person has yet made definite plans, then the future tense is better. Because you are referring to a particular time, use the future continuous.

In a statement, the speaker knows what the situation is, and they can use their choice of tense to provide more information.

3.‘Shall I pick up the laundry for you?’ ‘Oh, no, don’t make a special journey.’
‘It’s OK. I'll be going to the shops anyway.’

• Present continuous: It’s OK. I am going to the shops anyway. It has already been firmly arranged.
• Future continuous: It’s OK. I'll be going to the shops anyway. I already intend doing it, but perhaps I haven't yet made any definite plans.
• Future simple: It’s OK. I'll go to the shops anyway. I have just decided to do this.

 

[le avocado]

Questions and statements are different. When asking a question, you need to make assumptions about what the situation is. If you expect the other person to have already made their plans which cannot now be changed, and you want to ask about what these planse are, then use the present continuous. If, however, you aren't sure whether or not the other person has yet made definite plans, then the future tense is better. Because you are referring to a particular time, use the future continuous.

In a statement, the speaker knows what the situation is, and they can use their choice of tense to provide more information.

• Present continuous: It’s OK. I am going to the shops anyway. It has already been firmly arranged.
• Future continuous: It’s OK. I'll be going to the shops anyway. I already intend doing it, but perhaps I haven't yet made any definite plans.
• Future simple: It’s OK. I'll go to the shops anyway. I have just decided to do this.

Thanks so much, uncle Jack.

 

[le avocado]

The coach leaves/is due to leave/will leave/will be leaving at 4.30 pm sharp.

Hi lingobingo,
Even " be going to" is correct to use, right?
The coach is going to leave at 4.30 pm sharp.

 

[lingobingo]

I expect you mean “The coach is going to leave at 4.30 sharp”? This is possible as something you’d say when actually at the coach station. In other words, it might be used as part of a conversation, but not as an official announcement.

 

[le avocado]

I expect you mean “The coach is going to leave at 4.30 sharp”? This is possible as something you’d say when actually at the coach station. In other words, it might be used as part of a conversation, but not as an official announcement.

Thanks so much for your help.
As you said, and as I know by reading another threads on ways talking about future. I can use either among 5 sentences below to talk about the future.

As I see, for example below, there are 5 ways to talk about the future, which you said there are almost no difference between them. But as an English learner, I think it should be a subtle nuance between them. Do you think that I should forget about that subtle nuance between them, and choose what ever I like to use among these 5 sentences.

I don't know why I keep thinking about the subtle nuance between them. Any advice for me on this matter?


(1)The coach leaves at 4.30 pm sharp.
(2)The coach is leaving at 4.30 pm sharp.
(3)The coach will be leaving at 4.30 pm sharp.
(4)The coach will leave at 4.30 pm sharp.
(5)The coach is due to leave at 4.30 pm sharp.

 

[lingobingo]

Nuance is always dependent on context. All you’ve given us is a single isolated sentence. We don’t even know if this is meant as a snatch of conversation or a tannoy announcement or a sentence in a non-fiction book or whatever else. That’s what makes the difference in terms of nuance – the wider picture, the whole scenario in which something is being said or written.

 

[le avocado]

Nuance is always dependent on context. All you’ve given us is a single isolated sentence. We don’t even know if this is meant as a snatch of conversation or a tannoy announcement or a sentence in a non-fiction book or whatever else. That’s what makes the difference in terms of nuance – the wider picture, the whole scenario in which something is being said or written.

Hi lingobingo,
I will give the situation like this. Could you please tell me the difference in the nuance between these sentences?


(1)The coach leaves at 4.30 pm sharp. I think we should be hurry.
(2)The coach is leaving at 4.30 pm sharp. I think we should be hurry.
(3)The coach will be leaving at 4.30 pm sharp. I think we should be hurry.
(4)The coach will leave at 4.30 pm sharp. I think we should be hurry.
(5)The coach is due to leave at 4.30 pm sharp. I think we should be hurry.

 

[lingobingo]

I think we should be hurry.

4 and 5 are more formal than the others, so less idiomatic in dialogue (which is presumably what you intend here, despite the lack of inverted commas to indicate direct speech).

1, 2 would both be fine in this context, with the proviso that adding “pm” would be unlikely in speech.

3 is also perfectly possible, but there’s no obvious reason to use will.

 

[le avocado]

1, 2 would both be fine in this context, with the proviso that adding “pm” would be unlikely in speech.

Do you know the difference between them?

3 is also perfectly possible, but there’s no obvious reason to use will.

You mean I should you the contraction form of will ('ll). Right?

 

[lingobingo]

I really have nothing more to add. You seem to be assuming that there are significant differences in the use of these forms, which is simply not the case. Different people in different circumstances would say it in different ways.

 

[le avocado]

I really have nothing more to add. You seem to be assuming that there are significant differences in the use of these forms, which is simply not the case. Different people in different circumstances would say it in different ways.

Thanks so much for you advice, Lingobingo

 

[le avocado]

Hi,
Can I ask you another question related to expressing the future .

I just read on a website, It writes:

***
With future time expressions the present simple is typically used in official schedules and timetables.

The new exhibiton in the gallery starts next month.
The train departs at 8.25.

It can also describe future arrangements which are scheduled by someone else.

I arrive on Monday and Betty arrives on Tuesday. (Our arrivals are planned by our boss.)

***

I wonder that Can I use the present simple tense to refer to a personal arrangement like this

I have arranged a a vist with my friend Jack. I would tell with my mother

Me: Mom, I visit Jack next month. If you like to give him something, I will help you hand them out to him.

 

[lingobingo]

It is possible to use that style even in casual conversation, but it’s not the most natural way to say it. It would depend on the exact context, as I’ve already said. In the following two examples, the first one would be normal when telling someone your plan for the first time. The second one sounds more like a reminder of something you’ve told them before.

​

I’m going to see Jack next month. Is there anything you want me to take for him?​

I visit Jack next month. Is there anything you want me to take for him?​

 

[le avocado]

(4) does not really fit unless you are already eating. Not using the fork is not part of a pre-arranged plan.

as you explained that I can’t use present continuous for this situation “
I am not using this fork, thank you ( The present progressive tense).” Because this is not a pre arranged plan.

I saw a situation which is not a pre arranged plan, but it seems that present continuous can be used:

Moom: ( giving a banana to her soon)
Eat this banana.
Son: I’m not eating this. I hate banana.

 

[Uncle Jack]

I saw a situation which is not a pre arranged plan, but it seems that present continuous can be used:

Moom: ( giving a banana to her soon)
Eat this banana.
Son: I’m not eating this. I hate banana.

In a way it is related to the pre-arranged plan use of the present continuous. A pre-arranged plan usually uses a positive verb, and although you can include negative verbs (I'm not going to see John on this trip), I don't think that you would begin a description of a future plan with a negative verb.

Instead, the negative present continuous when referring to something in the future is used for emphasis, to strike a note of defiance, more than using "not going to".

 

[le avocado]

1 Will you be staying with us again tonight?
2. Are you staying with us again tonight?

There’s not much difference. Version 1 is probably more idiomatic in this context, but it does have a nuance of hoping the answer is no!

How about this pair of sentences:
3. Will you stay with us again tonight?
4. Are you going to stay with us again tonight?

I think (3) and (4) have the same meaning and sound like an invitation.Right?

 

[lingobingo]

No.

Will you [do something] is often a request or invitation.

Are you going to [do something] is just an enquiry as to whether or not you intend to do that.

 

[le avocado]

Hi everybody,
One more question about future tenses:

I read on an English website as below:

Q: “Will you be staying here for long?” (More polite than ‘Are you staying here for long?’)
A: “No, I will be leaving in a couple of days.”

Could you please help me explain why "Are you staying here for long?" is less polite than “Will you be staying here for long?”

 

[lingobingo]

It’s less direct, that’s all. Less in-your-face and less of a leading (yes/no) question.

This idea of not asking something outright, or expressing something as a suggestion rather than an instruction or as a possibility rather than a definite fact, is quintessential to English usage. We do this all the time, by using modal verbs (What Is Modality in Grammar and Semantics?).

 

[le avocado]

It’s less direct, that’s all. Less in-your-face and less of a leading (yes/no) question.

This idea of not asking something outright, or expressiing something as a suggestion rather than an instruction or as a possibility rather than a definite fact, is quintessential to English usage. We do this all the time, by using modal verbs (What Is Modality in Grammar and Semantics?).

This means "will" 's function in the sentence “Will you be staying here for long?” is a modal verb as "should","must","could". And using modal verbs make sentence less direct . "Will" here is not an auxiliary verb.

Is my understanding correct?

 

[lingobingo]

Yes, but it’s nearly always would and could and might that facilitate this toning down of what you say or ask, rather than will or can.

To be honest, I don’t see much difference between the two versions of the question in #37 – in other words, I don’t see it as a good example of the phenomenon I’m trying to describe. You’re basically asking me to explain an assertion that I don’t even agree with!

 

[le avocado]

Yes, but it’s nearly always would and could and might that facilitate this toning down of what you say or ask, rather than will or can.

To be honest, I don’t see much difference between the two versions of the question in #37 – in other words, I don’t see it as a good example of the phenomenon I’m trying to describe. You’re basically asking me to explain an assertion that I don’t even agree with!

As you told me on the previous threats and posts. You said that there is not much difference between them.

When reading more about these 2 tense " future continuous" and "present continuous" for asking someone's plan and information. Lots of articles say that " future continuous" is considered more polite, even with affirmative sentences as below quote. But they didn't tell the reason.

Here is another situation on this matter which I have found on the internet:


==Quote from the article
Pat asked about the difference between ” I will see you tomorrow” and ” I will be seeing you tomorrow.”
Is there any difference between these two phrases?

Sometimes with this particular phrase “I’ll be seeing you tomorrow” it can sound casual and friendly.
==

The more I study the more I get confused about this.

 

[lingobingo]

You’re confusing me too. I don’t think those comments about the progressive aspect make any sense.

[I’ll] see you tomorrow! – a typical way of saying goodbye to someone you see more or less every day
I’ll be seeing you tomorrow. – just a statement of fact, of the kind that often crops up in conversation

Are you coming to my party on Saturday?​

It depends on whether my niece can babysit, which I won’t know until tonight. But I’ll be seeing you tomorrow, so I’ll let you know then.​

 

[Uncle Jack]

Hi everybody,
One more question about future tenses:

I read on an English website as below:

Q: “Will you be staying here for long?” (More polite than ‘Are you staying here for long?’)
A: “No, I will be leaving in a couple of days.”

Could you please help me explain why "Are you staying here for long?" is less polite than “Will you be staying here for long?”

Without any context, I don't see any difference in politeness at all. "How long are you staying?" is a perfectly ordinary question to ask.

Politeness in English has many forms, and one is to convey a positive tone. The person the question is addressed to might wonder why the other person is asking the question. Do they not want me to stay for a long time? Conceivably the "will you...?" question is more positive than the "are you...?" question, but the difference is small. It isn't like the difference between "How long are you staying?" and "When are you leaving?"

Pat asked about the difference between ” I will see you tomorrow” and ” I will be seeing you tomorrow.”
Is there any difference between these two phrases?

Sometimes with this particular phrase “I’ll be seeing you tomorrow” it can sound casual and friendly.
==

There are all sorts of reasons for using the future simple and all sorts of reasons for using future continuous. From a straightforward grammatical perspective, the sense of "see" in "I'll see you tomorrow" does not have a duration, so it is not usually used in the continuous aspect. The continuous might be used for a repeated action, which is one reason why we use it for a relationship between two people (John was seeing Mary all last summer), although this use might be rather dated now. The future continuous in your example seems to be using a slightly different meaning of "see", one that does have a continuous form. Something like "visit" or "have a meeting with". Perhaps the speaker wishes to say that they will be spending some time with the other person tomorrow, rather than merely encountering them. On the other hand, it might merely be that person's habitual way of saying "I'll see you tomorrow". After all, some people say "Be seeing you" rather than "see you" as a farewell.

 

[le avocado]

You’re confusing me too.

) I am sorry this is happening

Are you coming to my party on Saturday?It depends on whether my niece can babysit, which I won’t know until tonight. But I’ll be seeing you tomorrow, so I’ll let you know then.

(1)Are you coming to my party on Saturday?
==>Focus on arrangement which has planned before speaking
(2)Will you come to my party on Saturday?
==> Sounds like an invitation
(3)Are you going to come to my party on Saturday?
==>Focus on intention
(4) Will you be coming to my party on Saturday?
==>Focus on an action which will be in progress in the future.

That is what I understand after reading some sources about future tense.
Except (2), then (1)(3)(4) have the same meaning. Choosing which sentence to say is just preference. Which sentence appears first on the speaker's mind, the will choose it to say. Native speakers even don't mind the difference between them when speaking

Right?

 

[lingobingo]

(2) is an invitation.

The other 3 are just different ways of asking the same question.

 

[le avocado]

Without any context, I don't see any difference in politeness at all. "How long are you staying?" is a perfectly ordinary question to ask.

I have a context that at a reception of a hotel. Receptionists often use " How long will you be staying ?" than " How long are you staying?" because the sentence with future continuous is considered more polite. Right?

 

[le avocado]

The other 3 are just different ways of asking the same question.

yes, but there must be different small emphasis between them. Right?
Take a look at this link:

Difference between present continuous and be going to

Quote related part from that link:
The present continuous tense is mainly used to talk about personal arrangements and fixed plans. Be going to can also be used to express the same idea; however, it puts an extra emphasis on the idea of intention.

As you explained, When speaking in real life, native speakers won't be aware of that emphasis between types of future tenses. Right?

 

[lingobingo]

I have a context that at a reception of a hotel. Receptionists often use " How long will you be staying ?" than " How long are you staying?" because the sentence with future continuous is considered more polite. Right?

That’s a specific occupational usage, rather like the cringeworthy “How may I help you?”. Saying that it’s more polite tends to suggest that “How long are you staying?” is impolite, which it’s really not. Depending on the context and the tone in which you ask it, even “How long will you be staying?” could very easily imply that you hope they won’t be staying long!

 

[le avocado]

Could you please help me with post #47?

 

[lingobingo]

I’m doing that / I’m going to do that
(any nuance depends more on the context than the grammar)

I’ll be doing that / I’m going to be doing that
(no obvious difference in meaning)