+0
The receptionist, who was away last week

The receptionist returning to work today

The receptionist returns today.

The receptionist, who was away last week and returns to work.

which is correct and what type of sentence is it
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Comments  (Page 3) 
The receptionist returns today.
The receptionist will return today.
The receptionist is going to return today.
The receptionist is returning today.
The receptionist will be returning today.
The receptionist is to return today.

I think these are all correct and natural in the right context.
Hi IronTiger. Hi all.
Can I ask you? How about the following sentences? Is there any difference in acceptability?

#1 The receptionist returns in an hour.
#2 The receptionist will return in an hour.
#3 The receptionist is going to return in an hour.
#4 The receptionist is returning in an hour.
#5 The receptionist will be returning in an hour.
#6 The receptionist is to return in an hour.

I really need your help!
Thank you so much (in advance).
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
These are all correct and natural in the right context.
Thank you, Eimai_Anglos, for your help.
I see!

Then can I ask you one more question, Eimai_Anglos? How do you think, what kind of difference between the two?

#a. I'm leaving here now/today.
#b. I'm leaving here in an hour.

Does #b have more "future/futurate-progressive" nuances?

(That is, #b could be understood as: it says nothing about the present situation, it refers only some future situation...?
Maybe I have a wrong prejudice. I'll really appreciate your comment. Sorry for my strange question, though, EA!)

(..oh sorry I changed the original sentences. They should be..
#a'. He is returning now/today.
#b'. He is returning in an hour. )
I'm sorry, Eimai_Anglos, there are quite a few context and everything will depend on them, so if I want to ask some question, I have to do it in another way.

I'm interested in such a construction as [be+~ing + in an hour/in a year], because it seemed to me something strange at first. And still feel uneasy a bit! But as you said, there's nothing odd given some proper context.

For the meantime please forget about my question in the previous post. Can I ask you later? with more concrete examples, when I find them?

With my warmest regards,
Roro
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
PS.
The construction [be+~ing + in an hour] is still baffling me. This is my humble idea, I'm inclined to think like this...

#1. I leave here in an hour.
#2. I'm leaving here in an hour.

#1 implies that [within an hour the event 'leave' takes place], [one hour later I will have left].

#2 doesn't have such an implication, it expresses rather only 'expectation' -- or 'intention'. One hour later I may be still here.

(Could I say like that? I'm still trying to understand the difference. ??)
Hello Roro

I have something of the same feeling about the two.

'I leave in an hour' is a slightly less usual formulation. It has a somewhat 'urgent' air: you might say it if you wanted to impress upon someone that you were indeed leaving in an hour – for instance, if they had to bring you a document before you left.

'I'm leaving in an hour' on the other hand sounds a little more relaxed. If someone said this, you wouldn't be too surprised if they were still there 70 minutes later.

(I don't intend this as a definitive distinction between the two forms: it's more a case of a 'slight bias' in each.)

MrP
Hello MrPedantic,

Umm... I see. Seems I didn't understand the second one before. The difference is only in nuances, it's rather a 'slight bias'. I see, now I understand it better, thank you!

It seems to me interesting that, in past tense, this pair shows rather clear difference (for me at least, it seems so):

# I left in an hour.
# I was leaving in an hour. (Seems this sentence has more of 'intentional' 'planning' nuances rather clearly.) (And this one possibly implies that I didn't leave within an hour.)

{How difficult to formalize a definitive distinction between the two forms! ... intention...!}

Thank you again, with my best regards,

==
PS.
It seems to me interesting. We usually don't "find" something intentionally, do we? I mean: we search or seek, look for something intentionally, but I cannot find my answer intentionally, however hard I'm trying!

Then that is without intentionality, [be+~ing ] seems somewhat odd, doesn't it? (I'm not sure at all, though.)

[1] I find it in an hour. / I found it in an hour.

[2] I'm finding it in an hour. / I was finding it in an hour.

Maybe we can understand [2] as if 'find' means 'seek'...??
But then is it natural to say "seek in an hour"...??

Or: we could give [2] "intention" and understand as: I'm trying to find it in an hour.

Then [1] and [2] have fairly different meanings. I don't know why but it seems interesting.

I'm getting confused again, still trying to understand, please let me think it over!

Thanks,
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Hello dear all,

I've heard that the form [be+~ing] has sometimes meanings of 'intentionality, agentivity, temporality', as in #2:

#1 He is funny.
#2 He is being funny.
#3 This book is funny.
#4 *This book is being funny.

but in the following the difference seems in temporality (not in intentionality/agentivity).
#5 The train leaves in an hour.
#6 The train is leaving in an hour.

But what kind of temporality..? Why in past tense (not in present tense) the difference would be made clear (or different)..?

#7 The train left in an hour.
#8 The train was leaving in an hour.

Somebody knows some answer & advices, references? Really buffling for me...
Show more