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] ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~