You are not wearing/going to wear this anymore

[DieguinPingüin06]

You are not wearing this anymore/You are not going to wear this anymore. Are the same?
I have this doubt about future in english, I know both are in an informal situation.
I saw this quote in some youtube video, where a mother was telling to her daughter about some expensive clothes. And she punish her, not letting her to use these clothes... "You are not wearing this anymore"
So I want to know if both sentences are the same, or not.
Thank you all for your answers

 

[pops91710]

Essentially it means the same thing. I am betting that the mother said, "You are not wearing this anymore!" even though you never said which was it she said.

 

[DieguinPingüin06]

Essentially it means the same thing. I am betting that the mother said, "You are not wearing this anymore!" even though you never said which was it she said.

Thank you!!!, and sorry, she said, You are not wearing this anymore!!!; You are right. I just edited the post

 

[gengo]

You are not wearing this anymore.
You are not going to wear this anymore.
You will not be wearing this anymore.

All of those are correct and have the same meaning. They are also commonly used with contractions (aren't and won't).

 

[pops91710]

You are not wearing this anymore.
You are not going to wear this anymore.
You will not be wearing this anymore.

Would you call these imperative statements? I mean, I can imagine a mother prohibiting the wearing of a short skirt by saying to her daughter any one of these sentences.

 

[gengo]

Would you call these imperative statements? I mean, I can imagine a mother prohibiting the wearing of a short skirt by saying to her daughter any one of these sentences.

Not directly, no. They are simply future tense forms, but of course they imply a command, or rather, a prohibition.

 

[Forero]

Of the 3 options, "are not wearing" expresses prohibition most clearly. The other options have nuances that can make them less absolute.

 

[User With No Name]

Not directly, no. They are simply future tense forms, but of course they imply a command, or rather, a prohibition.

Note that even the Ten Commandments are future tense forms, not grammatical imperatives. And I think you could argue that "Thou shalt not kill" is actually a stronger statement than "Do not kill."

Of the 3 options, "are not wearing" expresses prohibition most clearly. The other options have nuances that can make them less absolute.

Hmm. I really don't perceive that nuance. To me, they are all pretty categorical.

 

[gengo]

Note that even the Ten Commandments are future tense forms, not grammatical imperatives. And I think you could argue that "Thou shalt not kill" is actually a stronger statement than "Do not kill."

Yes, and that language survives in legal contexts today. In contracts, it is common to say Party A shall do X and shall not do Y.

 

[Mister Draken]

En castellano ha prevalecido en el ámbito legal (en particular en la redacción de leyes, reglamentos, normas, etc.) un tiempo de verbo que resulta super especializado: el futuro de subjuntivo. ¿Alguna vez se usa este tiempo en inglés?

 

[User With No Name]

¿Alguna vez se usa este tiempo en inglés?

Nos van a regañar por cambiar de tema, pero yo no tengo la menor idea de cómo sería un futuro de subjuntivo en inglés...

 

[pachanga7]

You are not wearing this anymore/You are not going to wear this anymore.

So I want to know if both sentences are the same, or not.

In theory they mean the same, but they don't have the same spoken impact. The second sentence is less emphatic. We use "going to" when we want to sound more casual and friendly, which is the opposite of what the mom is conveying here.