This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Question If it rains tomorrow, I --- home

For what it's worth, "I will be going to get a Sak Yant done in November." sounds perfectly normal to me. And just to make sure there's no confusion, at the risk of possibly beating a dead horse, hirashin, lots of examples like this are perfectly normal:

"I'll be going to get some groceries in a few hours."
"I'll be going to see a movie tomorrow."
"I'll be going to hunt deer this Saturday."

It's exactly the same sort of construction as sentences like these, just in a different tense:

"I need to go change my tires."
"I went to mail my taxes."
"I want to go climb the sand dunes."

You can see that in this case, "going" is just referring to the fact that you have to go (travel) somewhere. It doesn't have to be distant; it could be someplace close by, though it usually implies a different building at least. But it implies that the travel is necessary to do what you want to do.

So back to the original sentence:

I'll be going to stay home.

That doesn't make sense because it's contradictory. If you're "staying" home, you're not going anywhere.

Similarly, consider this example:

I'll be going to watch a DVD.

If you're at home, that probably doesn't make sense either, because you wouldn't need to leave your house to watch a DVD. On the other hand, it would make sense if you're outside, or at work, or otherwise not in a general location where you could watch a DVD.
 
Perhaps it is a British/American English thing but I still can't get my head around it. Why would you be using the future continuous in these examples in the first place? You are not describing unfinished continuous actions in the future, but intentions.
Even if I did use it I would then never use "going to" afterwards, but a preposition i.e. I might say "I am going to my friend's house" but "This time tomorrow I will be on my way to my friend's house" not "I will be going to my friend's house".
 
Simply speaking it's because most people do not think of grammar and then speak. They simply speak. And we are all raised in different locales so the norms and what is natural/unnatural can differ.

Michael2 said:
Even if I did use it I would then never use "going to" afterwards, but a preposition i.e. I might say "I am going to my friend's house" but "This time tomorrow I will be on my way to my friend's house" not "I will be going to my friend's house".
Click to expand...
It's not clear to me what you guys are having a problem with. Of course the "going to stay" sounds weird but the form itself doesn't seem odd.
These sound fine to me:
I will be going to my friend's house tomorrow.
I will be going to sleep at 9.
We will be going to watch a movie later.
Even Julie's example sounds plausible to me.
I'll be going to watch a DVD.
Perhaps it's because in my mind there is some movement. Maybe the person is moving to the living room to watch a DVD.
But even something like I'll be going to sleep sounds ok to me. The person may not be physically moving but they are transitioning into a different state of being.
Or am I missing the point?
 
Why would you be using the future continuous in these examples in the first place? You are not describing unfinished continuous actions in the future, but intentions.
Click to expand...
Dunno, why do we say "ain't" in the second person? Why do we shorten, "...am I not?" to the illogical, "...aren't I?" I dunno. Why does "horrible" mean "of low quality" when it clearly shares a common etymological origin with "horror"? No clue. Language is messy, huh?

But even something like I'll be going to sleep sounds ok to me. The person may not be physically moving but they are transitioning into a different state of being.
Click to expand...
"To go to sleep" is a fixed expression. I don't think it's an example of this.
 
(as long as nobody here is pushing anti-vaxxer views, I'm going to leave this thread alone...)
 
Certainly it seems odd to use "aren't I" for a first person tag question, but there might be a good reason for it. As for the others I could quite easily argue the whys of and like we both said sometimes it's just about the way things are said in different places, but to me it is utterly illogical to use the future continuous in these examples. There has to be some reason, consistency and logicality behind language otherwise we wouldn't be able to teach it.

Md, to clarify, it's the "will be going to (do)" form that I have a problem with, not "will be going + preposition"
 
I don't see how that follows. Most of the time, native speakers simply rote memorize everything (at least at the beginning), so nonsensical or illogical grammar isn't really a problem. And language isn't intelligently designed (unless it's Klingon or Esperanto), so there's nothing to stop messy and nonsensical rules from being introduced.
 
I agree. The sentence is clear with context that "going to" is an action as compared to a future tense.
 
Juliechan, I agree to an large extent; most people don't think too much about what they are saying and just copy what they hear, but language has been evolving organically logically ever since it ever began. There are some elements that I would say have slipped past the censors so to speak, but overall language is based simply on what makes sense, e.g. you don't say "I will go to Tokyo yesterday".because of the inherent meanings of the words, and if that sentence was acceptable the meanings of the words themselves would have to change.

Ootmaster, I'm not sure which sentence you are referring to, but what I find strange is, in "I'll be going to see a movie tomorrow", why would you not just say "I'm going to see a movie tomorrow?" I don't understand what is trying to be described in "I'll be going to see a movie" or any situation you would use it in. Again, perhaps it's an American English expression but to me it doesn't make sense, and there are much easier, more normal and straightforward alternatives. I can almost get my head around "I'll be going in July, to attend a conference," but in this example I have to separate the clauses with a comma, or put in "in order to" for it to make sense to me. In "I'll be going to attend a conference" it sounds like one run-on sentence without an appropriate separation.
 
overall language is based simply on what makes sense, e.g. you don't say "I will go to Tokyo yesterday".because of the inherent meanings of the words, and if that sentence was acceptable the meanings of the words themselves would have to change.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I buy that.

why would you not just say "I'm going to see a movie tomorrow?" I don't understand what is trying to be described in "I'll be going to see a movie" or any situation you would use it in.
Click to expand...
It's not a conscious effort. It's just a common way of saying it.

I can almost get my head around "I'll be going in July, to attend a conference," but in this example I have to separate the clauses with a comma, or put in "in order to" for it to make sense to me.
Click to expand...
I actually disagree. I think this example is an incorrect comma placement, since it's actually a single clause.

But really, ultimately, I think you're over-analyzing this. English is not a logical language, as nice it would be if it were. Japanese isn't, either. The only logical language is esperanto, because that language is intelligently designed. All other languages have oddities and quirks that make no sense when you think about them. But you just have to roll with it. And sometimes, that can mean that an expression that's quite common in the U.S. is seen as strange in the U.K.
 
But I don't think it is a common way of saying it. I've never met anyone, apart from a couple of people here who assert that this is fine, who use this phrase for the future. If the "going" part is supposed to mean an act of movement and not be part of the future progressive then the entire structure is a construct of "will be + going to" with a future meaning, which is simply wrong. For me the only way to make it acceptable is to put the comma in because that would render the first clause a future progressive one, followed by an infinitive of purpose clause with the comma there to show the pause, but if you thought it were acceptable as one phrase then yes, the comma would be wrong.
 
hirashin said:
Dear native English speakers,
I have a little question.
Click to expand...

@hirashin ,

In the future, I recommend that you avoid using the phrase "little question". "Question" alone is fine. Your "little questions" often result in big arguments.

Or, expressed as a 四字熟語:

小問大論
 
I couldn't get to see the site for several days for some reason.
I'm glad I could come here again.(^_^)

Thanks for the advice, joadbres. So it seems.

The arguments are beyond me.
 
hirashin said:
I couldn't get to see the site for several days for some reason.
Click to expand...

Hey, Hirashin, I have also had a lot of trouble recently, trying to post on this forum. But it seems to be working now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I wish it wouldn't rain tomorrow
Replies
6
Views
9K
OoTmaster
I hope it doesn't rain tomorrow.
Replies
4
Views
6K
hirashin
began to rain VS began raining
Replies
12
Views
9K
OoTmaster
I want a friend.
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
17K
PaulTB
P
I won't go out if it (rains / is raining / is rainy) tomorrow
Replies
1
Views
2K
mdchachi
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…