Sorry to take so long to respond on the issues of whether the future is OK
in a subordinate clause following a verb with 'will' and the further issue
of whether there is a future tense in English. I think in terms of the
former that, if this  construction had simply been used in writing or
speaking, no one would have noticed it. It's only when a student asks that
we must take notice and begin casting around for some kind of rule.
 
In the case of the future tense, I suppose that we can define a tense in
whatever way is most useful and say that it can be carried either by
inflection or by a specific auxiliary--if it is useful to do things that
way. However, I would still have serious doubts about what Johanna labels
as the habitual tense. It seems not to be carried by a regular construction
such as "will" plus a main verb but by a wide variety of words that we do
not usually associate with verbs.
 
In such a case, I would fall back on the notion that every language can say
everything that can be said in other languages except that it may be done
in different ways. Some languages would express the idea of habitual action
by means of an actual tense while other would do it by means of the
semantic system.
 
Bill McCleary
 
>I don't agree with Bill McCleary that the future is OK in a subordinate
>clause following a verb with 'will'. It gets rejected by my 'grammar
>machine'. But, it may very well occur in speech. I'll start listening.
>Now, if I hear it, is it a grammatical sentence, or a performance error
>caused by online processing constraints??
>
>For me, having 'will' in the downstairs clause makes the event too distant
>in the future. If someone is already walking off with the silver as they
>are on their way out the door, it seems a little odd to say that they
>'will walk off with the silver'. I realize this is not terribly logical,
>since, as long as they aren't out the door, they have not yet left with
>the silver. Perhaps I am leaning towards the prototypical situations that
>call for future marking. After all, we can easily say 'Stop her, or she
>will walk off with the silver!'
>
>As to the 'future tense' issue, it depends on what you mean by 'tense': a
>verb form, or something that relates the coded event to the time that the
>sentence is uttered/written? If 'tense' is restricted to modifications of
>the form of the lexical verb, we clearly have no future tense, while
>languages like Spanish and French do. If 'tense' means any morphological
>or syntactic construction that expresses that the coded action is going to
>take place _after_ the moment of speaking, then we do have a future
>'tense'. I think the latter is defensible, especially in view of the fact
>that English has not just a tense system, but an aspectual system as well.
>The 'will' construction functions as a tense, and can combine with any
>aspect:
>
>Habitual                In my old age, I will take a walk every day.
>Future Progressive      We will be going to the doctor tomorrow.
>Future Perfect          We will have finished dinner by eight p.m.
>
>English has a mixed system with respect to how it codes tense, aspect and
>mood. In some cases we use variant forms of the verb, as with past tense
>and subjunctive mood ('It is imperative that he arrive on time!' -- no
>'-s'); in other cases we use an auxiliary verb, as in modal 'should' or
>progressive 'is eating'. In a few cases we use 'suppletion', or total
>replacement with another root, as in 'go - went'. Other languages might be
>more consistent. But, since this area of meaning is one that is subject to
>a lot of change over the life of a language, any language is likely to be
>between systems at any given point in time.
>
>I prefer at all times to separate form from function. We can reserve
>'tense' for a verb _form_, and discuss its function separately. The
>'tense' named 'present' only signals 'action in progress at the moment of
>speaking' for stative verbs such as 'know' and 'resemble'. Non-stative
>verbs must use the progressive for this meaning. Consider:
>
>I am eating right now.
>*I eat right now.
>
>And in English, the past tense form is rapidly taking over in
>hypotheticals where the subjunctive used to be used, as in 'I wish I was
>rich'. We still interpret this as hypothetical or irrealis, we just use a
>form called the 'past tense' to convey this meaning. Note that this isn't
>our only option. We could use uninflected 'be' or a modal such as 'would',
>but we don't. 'Would' is in fact taking over the past subjunctive, which
>used to be marked by the past perfect:
>
>I wish I had called him.
>I wish I would have called him.
>
>I frequently hear the latter from educated speakers, and probably use it
>myself.
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics              ~
>English Department, California Polytechnic State University   ~
>San Luis Obispo, CA 93407                                     ~
>Tel. (805)-756-2184  E-mail: [log in to unmask]      ~
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
 
William J. McCleary                     Editor: Composition Chronicle
Associate Prof. of English              Viceroy Publications
Coordinator of Secondary English        3247 Bronson Hill Road
SUNY at Cortland                        Livonia, NY 14487
607-753-2076                            716-346-6859
[log in to unmask]         [log in to unmask]