English Language

[Pensive]

As many of us in this forum are not native speakers of English, I thought that there might be some problems we face and want to discuss regarding English language.

There is a question which is bugging my mind quite a lot now a days. It is that what's the main difference between going to and will?

For example, I say:

I am going to Hyderabad.
I will go to Hyderabad.

I don't see these sentences make any difference. Both of these mean that the person will go to Hyderabad. Isn't it so? If not so, then I will be really thankful if anyone can explain this to me.


-----------------------

Another question arising in my mind is of following American English or British English. What do you think is more suitable? Spelling colour or color? Does it matter if we use American English in some sentences and British English in other one's? I think it is not a proper way, and I know a few people who do so. Just wanted to hear what your thoughts are about this matter, and what kind of English do you yourselves follow. :)

[SheykAbdullah]

'I am going to Hyderabad' and 'I will go to Hyderabad' actually are not both future tenses. The first is the present tense, meaning you are undertaking the action of going this very second. The second means you will go to Hyderabad.

What you are thinking of is 'I will go to Hyderabad' and 'I am going to go to Hyderabad' and the difference is slight. They both mean future actions, but (and this is not exactly a scientific explanation) 'will' tends to have a more distant meaning, such as 'I will go to Hyderabad sometime' whereas 'I am going to go to Hyderabad' has an implication of something more immediate, however, you can use both in the same sense and be understood.

So as far as meaning goes they are identical, but there are situations where one is more appropriate for sounding like a 'casual' speaker of English than the other. If in doubt, for casual's sake, I would always use 'will' unless the thing is going to happen immediately after now or some future event, as an example; "I'm going to go to Hyderabad tomorrow, right after I buy the ticket." Personally, I would say that as opposed to "I will go to Hyderabad tomorrow, right after I buy the ticket." (The second sentence has a note of desperation to me, like the speaker is trying to force something and doesn't really believe he is going to buy a ticket, but that may just be an idiosyncracy of mine, so I don't want to say that 'will' is more of a subjunctive tense of doubt. 'Will' historically does derive from the same defective verb as 'would' but I dount think that they are related mood-wise.)

[Pensive]

'I am going to Hyderabad' and 'I will go to Hyderabad' actually are not both future tenses. The first is the present tense, meaning you are undertaking the action of going this very second. The second means you will go to Hyderabad.

What you are thinking of is 'I will go to Hyderabad' and 'I am going to go to Hyderabad' and the difference is slight. They both mean future actions, but (and this is not exactly a scientific explanation) 'will' tends to have a more distant meaning, such as 'I will go to Hyderabad sometime' whereas 'I am going to go to Hyderabad' has an implication of something more immediate, however, you can use both in the same sense and be understood.

So as far as meaning goes they are identical, but there are situations where one is more appropriate for sounding like a 'casual' speaker of English than the other. If in doubt, for casual's sake, I would always use 'will' unless the thing is going to happen immediately after now or some future event, as an example; "I'm going to go to Hyderabad tomorrow, right after I buy the ticket." Personally, I would say that as opposed to "I will go to Hyderabad tomorrow, right after I buy the ticket." (The second sentence has a note of desperation to me, like the speaker is trying to force something and doesn't really believe he is going to buy a ticket, but that may just be an idiosyncracy of mine, so I don't want to say that 'will' is more of a subjunctive tense of doubt. 'Will' historically does derive from the same defective verb as 'would' but I dount think that they are related mood-wise.)
Yes, it makes sense. Thank you.

So "going to" should be used in this sentence:

I am going to eat Noodles for Dinner when I have prepared the dinner, and if I haven't then "will" will be more suitable, isn't it so? I think that I have got the main concept, but it can get quite confusing sometimes, because sometimes there are situations where both "will" and "going to" can be used.

[SheykAbdullah]

Another question arising in my mind is of following American English or British English. What do you think is more suitable? Spelling colour or color? Does it matter if we use American English in some sentences and British English in other one's? I think it is not a proper way, and I know a few people who do so. Just wanted to hear what your thoughts are about this matter, and what kind of English do you yourselves follow. :)

Sorry, I thought this bottom section was a quote, so I have to make two posts to respond my feelings. It would be ideal to use EITHER BrE (British English) standard spelling OR AmE American English) standard spelling, but confusing the two woud certainly not be a sin, especially if people knew you were not a native English speaker. As far as what English I follow, it is American without a doubt, but then again it IS the language I've spoken for, well, all my life. I can't think of anything more annoyingly pretensious, presumptious, and out-of-place than an American affecting to British speech and vice-versa (aside from occasoianly misspellings we may all be liable to). There is just no good reason to except to prove something to somebody, the langauges are totally mutually intelligible.

In any case, if I were you I would write whatever spelling I learned and not worry. You will inevitably be forgiven because you are a non-native speaker, just as I am sure (at least I hope I am) that I am forgiven when native Persian speakers see my absolutely terrible spelling and akward clauses.

As far as my interesting historical tidbit, 'color' was actually spelled 'colour' in AmE until the ninteenth century when Noah Webster wrote his dictionary of English and deleted to 'u' from it and all other words of its ilk. In fact most of the spelling differences between AmE and BrE are tracable to Webster, who only went half as far in altering the spelling of English as he wanted to.

[Pensive]

In any case, if I were you I would write whatever spelling I learned and not worry. You will inevitably be forgiven because you are a non-native speaker, just as I am sure (at least I hope I am) that I am forgiven when native Persian speakers see my absolutely terrible spelling and akward clauses.

Hmmm, it is not about forgiveness. If I take some money from my mother's purse without asking her, I will be forgiven, but still I know that I should not do that. :p

So I asked it out just for the sake of curiosity. :) Ahh, inquisitiveness is my weakness.

[SheykAbdullah]

Yes, it makes sense. Thank you.

So "going to" should be used in this sentence:

I am going to eat Noodles for Dinner when I have prepared the dinner, and if I haven't then "will" will be more suitable, isn't it so? I think that I have got the main concept, but it can get quite confusing sometimes, because sometimes there are situations where both "will" and "going to" can be used.

I hate to say it, but to me saying 'I will eat noodles for dinner' still sounds a little strange. I think dinner, this dinner, seems a little close for 'will.' To use that example, I think it would sound more natural to say 'On Monday I will (I'll for me) eat noodles for dinner." Because it is more distant. I know it sounds wierd, but since 'this dinner' is ocurring today using 'will' just sounds akward. I would say, once you've made a definite decision use 'going to' and when it's still uncertain use 'will.' To be honest, it's a very nuanced thing, much like what one of our Supreme Court justices (Oliver Wendel Holmes, I believe) said about pornography; 'I know it when I see it.' That's kind of how this works.

I will go out on a limb (now in this sense I use 'will' instead of 'going to' for the opposite reason than I just said, to express definiteness) and create these rules which are totally unscientific and the creation of a moment;

1) If the thing is definitely going to happen either today, or in the order of a sequence of events use 'going to.' Eg, I'm going to have noodles for dinner, or I'm going to have noodles for dinner on Monday after I get back from Hyderabad. (Of course, to me this is "I'm gunna." You may also compare my definitely American 'get back' to its British equivalent for your last question)

2) If a thing is going to happen in some distant point in time and is uncertain use 'will.' Eg, I'll have noodles for dinner tomorrow.

3) Something is going to happen in the immediate future (like today) and it is going to happen for absolutely sure. Eg, I will go to the market today and buy that dress I've wanted so badly. (and no one's going to stop me)

[Schokokeks]

Hi Pensive,

interesting questions you've put there :nod:.
Maybe I can contribute to your issue in quoting the English grammar book we're using in uni classes. There it says concerning the use of the going-to-future:
* used to describe intentions and plans, but (as SheykAbdullah already pointed out) only if the event is in the nearer future.
Sample sentences:
> I am going to make a lot of cookies for Pensive's birthday party.
> Are you going to watch the Jane Austen adaption on TV tonight ?
* furthermore, the going-to-future is used to express that an event is going to (!) happen with great certainty, because there might be already some signs for it visible in the present.
Example:
> Pensive is going to jump at her little brother. She's all red in the face with anger.

In contrast, the will-future:
* is used to describe future events that depend on external circumstances or conditions.
Example:
> It will be sunny in Southern Pakistan next Monday, but the northern areas will see a rainy day.
* Furthermore, the will-future is used to express a spontaneous decision that the speaker didn't plan beforehand.
Example:
> Schokokeks: "Oh dear, I'm stuck with my essay on Charles Dickens." Pensive: "Don't worry, I'll help you."

I hope this wasn't too confusing :).

As to your other question concerning British and American English, I follow the British pronunciation and spelling. When I started studying English at uni, students were asked to opt for one accent and pronunciation and to stick to it, and take their language lab classes according to their choice. In every exam you have to tick a box whether you are using British or American spelling, and any inconsistency will be marked as a mistake.

[Pensive]

Thanks a lot, Schokokeks! This is really helpful. :)


It will be sunny in Southern Pakistan next Monday, but the northern areas will see a rainy day.

:eek2: :eek2:

How did you know? :p It is always raining in the northern parts, while us, southern people are deprived of it mostly. :bawling:

[Schokokeks]

How did you know? :p It is always raining in the northern parts, while us, southern people are deprived of it mostly. :bawling:

Oh, well, due to my extensive travels to Pakistan, of course :p No, serious, just a lucky guess :D

By the way, in case you're up to being confused some more :D: I've recently read The Elements of Style by William Strunk, a short book with advice on grammatical and stylistic issues for writers of English.
I quote here from a passage on the use of "will":

In formal writing, the future tense requires shall for the first person, will for the second and third. The formula to express the speaker's belief regarding a future action or state is I shall; I will expresses determination or consent.
Example: A swimmer in distress cries: "I shall drown; no one will save me!" A suicide puts it the other way: "I will drown; no one shall save me!"
In relaxed speech, however, the words shall and will are seldom used as equivalents.
But as he says, I think, if at all, you only need to bother with shall in formal writing. So watch out for it in your final school exams ! ;)

[SheykAbdullah]

Sorry to cut in on something a little off-topic, but 'shall' is a personal pet-peeve of mine. Namely that, this coming from an educated native English speaker with a passion for linguistics beyond intense, 'shall' is about as useful as your appendix. It doesn't do anything but get inflamed and screw you over.

If I were you I would never use shall and you wouldn't be alone for the neglect. 95% of all educated english speakers never use the word/mood even in literary enviroments unless they remind themselves to put it down. If your English professor insists on it and it is a grade buster by all means write it, but then send him/her over to me and we'll have a roll in the linguistic mud ;).

In any case, despite common belief English has no real rules, or should I say the only rule is, admittedly narcisitc, that whatever sounds good to a native, educated English speaker is what's right. Unlike every other European language there has never been a council to set the English rules of grammar in stone, therefore the only guides that exist are the way the King speaks (an informal guide for the Brits) and for us Americans the rule is that whomever can put on the most airs to come up with fancy-sounding rules is right.

In any case, 'shall' (and I was taught to always use 'shall' when there is doubt and 'will' when there is none, but this is a really crappy guide) is the future form of the defective verb that 'should' comes from which was something like 'sceoldan' in Old English (Pensive, I don't know if you know Persian and I don't know how Urdu works, but in Persian the word for 'should', 'shayad,' is also a root from the defective verb 'shayestan' and the two words, English and Persian, come from a common root word in Proto-Indo-European).

This origin should indicate that the verb 'shall' has a subjunctive mood usage, i.e. it should be used in the last part of a clause such as "I believe I shall..." or "I doubt that you shall..." However, there is no real subjunctive left in English (there are some rare cases, and one can be found in this post; "If I were you") and as such 'shall' should no longer exist as a word.

Maybe when English becomes Latin and people debate the righteousness of linguistic laws that were archaic even while its speakers were still alive, 'shall' may be resurrected, but for now 'shall' has a very precarious existence and I, for one, hope it dies a quick and painless death.

[Pensive]

Oh, well, due to my extensive travels to Pakistan, of course :p No, serious, just a lucky guess :D

By the way, in case you're up to being confused some more :D: I've recently read The Elements of Style by William Strunk, a short book with advice on grammatical and stylistic issues for writers of English.
I quote here from a passage on the use of "will":

But as he says, I think, if at all, you only need to bother with shall in formal writing. So watch out for it in your final school exams ! ;)

Like SheykAbdullah, I have always been taught that "shall" is used when you are not sure about something, and you don't have a sure intention of doing it. On the other hand "will" should be used when you are more confirmed that you are going to do that thing. That's why I got confused between "will" and "going to." But I guess that from now, I will use "going to" with distant future, or something that is confirmed I am going to perform. :)

I have also been told by a teacher of mine that "will" works in both ways, it wouldn't hurt if I use "will" in the place of "shall."

Schokokeks,
I have never heard of this rule regarding that "shall" should be used in first person narrative. In fact, I have seen most of the writers using "will" in it. I wonder if it matters...


(Pensive, I don't know if you know Persian and I don't know how Urdu works, but in Persian the word for 'should', 'shayad,' is also a root from the defective verb 'shayestan' and the two words, English and Persian, come from a common root word in Proto-Indo-European).

Well, Urdu is a Lashkari language, mixture of Turkish, Persian, Arabic and Hindi. So there are many words alike. I do use the word "shayad" in my daily language. But I think that "shayad" means "maybe" not "should."

In Urdu,


Mein shayad kal school jaon.

In English,


I might go to school tomorrow.

I think that "shayad" has more to do with might.

Sheyk Abdullah,
For how much time are you living in Persia? You seem to be a foreign person who is living in Persia. You must be knowing Persian, don't you? This is interesting to see that I can understand a bit of Persian as well. I was reading an article about Persian on wikipedia, and it is really astonishing that how many words the language shares with Urdu.

[Madhuri]

Besides what you guys have written about shall and will, I would like to add this as well.

I think 'Will' is like a capability (whether you are capable or not)

'Shall' is more in terms of assertion and not capability.

eg: May I come in or Can I come in (Can also shows capability)

when we ask our teacher's permission, she may say yes or no. In the first case even if you are capable you are not allowed so you dont enter. In the second case you are actually asking her whether you are capable of coming in or not.

Similarly, for -- I shall go in and I will go in.....

[Schokokeks]

If I were you I would never use shall and you wouldn't be alone for the neglect. 95% of all educated english speakers never use the word/mood even in literary enviroments unless they remind themselves to put it down. [...]
Maybe when English becomes Latin and people debate the righteousness of linguistic laws that were archaic even while its speakers were still alive, 'shall' may be resurrected, but for now 'shall' has a very precarious existence and I, for one, hope it dies a quick and painless death.

Maybe I should add here that the book by William Strunk, from where I took the quote on the use of "shall" given above, was first published in 1918 ;). I take the writing style was slightly different back then, and people more concerned about getting their sentences sound the most educated as possible. After all, "shall" sounds very mannerly to me, something to be used in times where the upper society still frequented salons. Nothing for my essays, then :D.

But still, linguistically interesting how "shall" lost its place in speech and writing today...

[Pensive]

But still, linguistically interesting how "shall" lost its place in speech and writing today...

Well, not too astonishing after seeing the difference between the English spoken/written by Shakespeare and Rowling. The language at that time is so different from that of now. We can expect things to change more fastly as days pass by.

The wheel of time goes by, bringing about changing in everything, I can only say that. :D

Now a days, in O Levels examination, rules regarding punctuation are not too strict. On the other hand, in older days they were as strict as they could be. But the question is whether if these changes are for good? Personally, I feel these are good, at least for the students. :p We no longer have to worry too much about where to put comma. :p

[SheykAbdullah]

Pensive; for your question about my living in Persia I never have. I did spend six months in Afghanistan, but I wasn't exactly living there. I learned Persian in school and have read a lot about it since then. In Persian 'shayad' also means 'maybe' instead of 'should,' but words inevitably shift in meaning, especially considering it has been probably six thousand years since Proto-Indo-European was spoken.

The evolution of language is, in general, an interesting thing. It's always uncertain and especially so in English. Most of the stuff mentioned in this thread (the 'can'/'will' distinction, 'shall' and how it's used, etc) are all things that English teachers in England and the US teach their students and harp on them about (in elementary school I always had to ask 'may I use the restroom' lest I recieve the smart answer 'I don't know can you? and when you asked it again with 'may' the answer was often no, which led one to wondering what the point of it all was to begin with). Eventually, however, English teachers give up when it comes to all these anal retentive tendancies and English rolls on without its native speakers using 'shall' or caring whether they use 'may' or 'can' except when they want to sound 'correct' and are carefully watching their language.

As far as puncuation is concerned, it's for the best that its teaching is lax. I hate it. Commas in particular. I can't stand commas and I never have even the slightest idea when I am ever supposed to use them.

[SleepyWitch]

I need help for my application to teach German in England:

what do you call a person who looks after kids at a camp? I don't mean a boot camp or refugee camp ;) but something like Red Cross Youth, Boy Scouts etc., i.e. a summer camp.
I've heard both "counsellor" and "tutor" but my dictionary says "counsellor" is American English and it doesn't have the summer camp meaning under "tutor" at all. So if I use "counsellor" will that mean something like "psychiatrist" in British English?

[SleepyWitch]

*push* ^^^^^^^^
thanks :)

[JBI]

English is funny because the words inflect by changing or adding words, and not by changing or adding endings.