We have partnered with TradePub to bring you free industry magazines and resources - no coupons or credit cards required!
Visit: englishforums.tradepub.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
MrPedantic
+
120484
Sat, 23 Jul 05 01:17 AM
Have a try first yourself, Anon!
Joined on
Tue, Oct 12 2004
Veteran Member
13,616
...opella forensis / adducit febris...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roro
+
120784
Sun, 24 Jul 05 04:32 AM
Hello there. I just got interested in Pemmican's question and all of the replies above. From kitkattail's example (+α):
[1] By the time you get to work tomorrow, I will have been slaving away for hours.
[2] By the time you get to work tomorrow, I will be slaving away for hours.
[3] Until the time you get to work tomorrow, I will have been slaving away for hours.
[4] Until the time you get to work tomorrow, I will be slaving away for hours.
If I understand your explanation properly, by-clause in [1] provides some 'anchor' in the future. In this case the use of the 'Future-Perfect-Progressive' is appropriate, with temporal adverbials of duration, as in [1].
My question is rather naive: I feel uneasy as to [2] and [3]. But I feel nothing as to [4]. Is it wrong?
How do they sound to your ears..?
┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈
(quote=Anon)
Provided that you continue to study in this way, in three years' time you _______ English.
a) will have mastered
b) will have been mastering
┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈
Dear anon, this is just my humble opinion (I'm a EFL learner, by the way): temporal adverbials like 'in three years' time' requires some notion of 'limitation', 'completion' of event or something, so it doesn't collocate with progressive forms, in most cases.
(There surely are exceptions, which should be explained, as I've learned. When I'm wrong, please kindly correct me!)
With my warmest regards,
Joined on
Mon, Apr 11 2005
Regular Member
581
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MrPedantic
+
120824
Sun, 24 Jul 05 08:53 AM
Hello Roro
[1] By the time you get to work tomorrow, I will have been slaving away for hours. – Yes, this one's fine!
[2] By the time you get to work tomorrow, I will be slaving away for hours. – You're right to be uneasy about this one. 'By the time' defines a period in the future; so the tense of the following verb must relate back to that period. The ordinary future is too open; so we need the future perfect. Interestingly, the 'for hours' may well define a different period; in #1, for instance:
Time of utterance: 9pm today.
Time of arrival: 9am tomorrow morning.
Time 'I' began work: 5am tomorrow morning.
[3] Until the time you get to work tomorrow, I will have been slaving away for hours. – Here, you would have to drop 'for hours' (conflicts with 'until'), and use the future progressive: 'I'll be slaving away till you get to work tomorrow'.
[4] Until the time you get to work tomorrow, I will be slaving away for hours. – As in #3, you have to drop the 'for hours'.
Bye!
MrP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roro
+
120851
Sun, 24 Jul 05 10:57 AM
Hello MrPedantic, thank you so much for all your help.
It will take some time to digest every information I've got in a couple of days.
There is much intriguing information. Indeed!
I'll pay maximum attention to those kind of constructions when I read something from now on.
I really appreciate your help!
ᴥ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roro
+
120871
Sun, 24 Jul 05 12:56 PM
Hello MrPedantic again,
I was not aware of this point before:
As to [3] & [4] you have to drop 'for hours' ┈┈ it conflicts with 'until' ┈┈ and use the future progressive: 'I'll be slaving away till you get to work tomorrow'.
I thought the collocation [be+~ing for hours][till ~] would be acceptable. But now I understand well that there is certainly some semantic conflict.
Cannot thank you enough!
With my warmest regards,
Roro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eimai_Anglos
+
120902
Sun, 24 Jul 05 03:17 PM
 Roro wrote: | | It will take some time to digest every information I've got in a couple of days.
|
|
Hoooo, analyse that!
How about: "It will take some time to digest every piece of information I've got over the last couple of days."
Or "It will take a couple of days to digest every piece of information I've got."
Joined on
Thu, Jun 23 2005
Regular Member
509
Martin - native English speaker and technical author.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roro
+
120922
Sun, 24 Jul 05 04:38 PM
Hello Eimai_Anglos, nice talking to you! Thank you for your reply!
Please don't be too hard on me, EA, English is a completely foreign language, and, living in Japan, I have almost no chance to use it in daily life!
... well!
You demand that I should analyse them, right?
Or there is something wrong in my sentence? (I cannot judge.)
Let me think, a bit... Thank you for your tip, EA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pieanne
+
120949
Sun, 24 Jul 05 06:59 PM
I think EA was rephrasing your sentence, Roro... But don't tell us English is completely foreign to you, I wouldn't buy it! ![Rose [F]](/emoticons/emotion-66.gif) You're doing QUITE well!
Joined on
Thu, Jan 20 2005
South of France ...But I'm Belgian!
Veteran Member
7,517
I'm glad to help, but I'm not a native! And please excuse my typos...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MrPedantic
+
120973
Sun, 24 Jul 05 10:45 PM
Hello Roro
I should clarify something I said yesterday:
[3] Until the time you get to work tomorrow, I will have been slaving away for hours.
The difficulty here is not just 'until' + 'for hours'; the conjunction of 'until' with the future perfect also causes problems.
The future perfect requires a specific point in the future, from which one can look back on a particular action. But in #3, the 'until' makes the time reference a period, rather than a point.
For instance, let's say 'you' get to work at 9am. Then, the 'until' clause can be replaced thus:
1. Up to 9am, I will have been slaving away for hours.
The future perfect here has no peg to hang from: we can't say when the 'slaving away' took place. Whereas in this version –
2. By the time you get to work tomorrow (at 9am), I will have been slaving away for hours.
– we know that the action stretches back from 9am.
MrP
|
|
|
|
|
|