On Jun 24, 11:18 am, datere yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
> On 6月24日, 下午9時39分, Jim Karatassos gmail.com> wrote:
>>You write that "you learned it from
>> your grammar books." I would like to know which one, specifically.
> I have many sets of grammar books, about 10 sets of them. Most of them
> says we don't need to use "will"(future tense) in both main clause and
> noun clause/relative clause. Just like the first four sentences in my
> original post. The first two are from one of the books you wouldn't
> know (not written by native speakers), the rest are from Practical
> English Usage, which is the oldest edition, in 556.1.
>> The answer to your question can be found on pages 583-585 of Swan's
> The section of "tense simplification in subordinate clauses" in my
> book doesn't indicated exactly if I can use "will" in both parts of a
> sentence or not, it just says "it is not always necessary for the same
> time to be indicated again in subordinate clauses"(From 556.1 in my
> edition), but what if I choose to put "will" in both of them? Could
> that be rated "incorrect"? That's what I want to know. And in fact
> there's a sentence using "will" in both parts of a sentence ("I'll
> tell him that I'll call back later."). That confused me more.
The purpose of your original post was to ask a specific question about
tense simplification dealing the future, NOT about the entire
phenomenon of tense simplification in English.
Section 556.1 in Swan tries to give a general rule-by-thumb reason for
ALL tense simplification in ALL cases in English. He explains that it
happens because the main verb makes it clear what kind of time the
speaker is talking about.
So first, let me give you my standard upper-intermediate explanation
on tense simplification for the FUTURE, which after all, is what
you're after here. Most of it is taken from _English Grammar in Use_,
by Raymond Murphy.
Look at this sentence.
I'll phone you when I get home.
There are two parts (clauses) to this sentence.
I'll phone you... (This can stand alone, and we'll call it a main
...when I get home. (This cannot stand alone, and we'll call it a
But what KIND of subordinate clause is it?
It's an ADVERBIAL. We could also say: I'll phone you "hourly,"
substituting the subordinate clause used for an adverb, and it would
still make sense. We could also say I'll phone you "in an hour,"
substituting the subordinate clause used for a prepositional phrase,
and once again, the sentence would make perfect sense.
WHAT DOES THIS ADVERBIAL DO?
It marks TIME.
In sentences like these we do not use "will" in the subordinate
clause. That is also true if if the subordinate clause begins with any
TIME MARKER (when, while, before, after, as soon as, until, by the
The same is also true if the subordinate clause begins with "if,"
which we might call a "conditional marker."
That's a place to start, and now we'll move on to a more advanced
form. I'll take you line by line through Swan, and I've added some
notes. Please compare the two and GO SLOW!!!
Present tenses are often used instead of will+infinitive to refer to
the future in subordinate clauses. This happens not only after
conjunctions of time like when, until, after, before, as soon as, but
in most other subordinate clauses -- for instance after IF, WHETHER
and ON CONDITION THAT (CONDITIONAL MARKERS), after question words and
relatives, and in indirect speech.
I'll write to her when I have time. (Time marker, WHEN)
I'll think of you when I'm lying on the beach next week. (Time marker,
Will you stay here until the plane takes off? (Time marker, UNTIL)
It will be interesting to see whether he recognizes you. (Conditional
I'll have a good time whether I win or lose. (Conditional marker,
I'll lend it to you on condition that you bring it back tomorrow.
(Conditional marker, ON CONDITION THAT)
I'll go where you go. (Question word, WHERE)
He says he'll give find pounds to anybody who finds his pen. (Relative
One day the government will rreally ask people what they want.
(Question word, WHAT)
If she asks what I'm doing in her flat (Conditional marker, IF), I'll
say I'm checking the electricity meter. (Indirect speech)
I think you'll find the wind slows you down a bit. (Noun clause)
This can happen even if the main verb does not have a future form,
provided it refers to the future.
Phone me when you arrive. (Imperative)
Make sure you come back soon. (Imperative)
You can tell who you like next week, but not until then. (Present
simple with "can")
(Some more work follows about present perfect tenses used with a
future sense of completion, but let's not go into that here.)
556.3 future in subordinate clauses
A future verb is necessary for future reference in a subordinate
clause if the main verb does not refer to the future (or to the same
time in the future).
I don't know where she will be tomorrow. (Main verb, don't know, does
not refer to the future.)
I'm sure I won't understand a word of the lecture. (Main verb, sure,
does not refer to the future.)
I'll hide it somewhere he he'll never find it. (two different future
If she rings, I'll tell her that I'll ring back later. (TWO DIFFERENT
Now things start to make a bit more sense.
Your one example that confused you, "I'll tell her that I'll call back
later." refers to a different section of the book and is explained in
the theory in that part of the book: "I'll tell" refers to a different
time from "I'll call."
It may not be that way in the first edition...I no longer have access
to a copy of it.
Let's look at your original post again:
On Jun 24, 8:41 am, datere yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
> I learned from my grammar books that we usually use only one "will" in
> either the main clause or the noun clause/relative clause. For
> I'll give 10 dollars to anybody who washes my car.
> The man who marries my daughter will need to be tough and quick-
> This discovery will mean that we spend less on food.
> I will pray that he wins.
> But I'm wondering if I could use "will" in both parts of them.
...who washes (who, Relative pronoun)
...who marries (who, Relative pronoun)
...that we spend (that, Conjunction)
,,,that he wins (that, Conjunction)
So the answer to your original question is NO, it wouldn't be good
English to change the sentences as you wished.
You should know that "doubling wills" in time-marked subordinate
clauses is a common upper-level/advanced problem, and is often tested
on ESL public examinations. I'd be willing to bet any amount of money
that in your language, this kind of tense simplification does not
Just as in several of the other replies to your post, even an educated
native speaker examining your four altered examples would probably
just be able to tell you that some of them sound a bit strange, bot
Which begs the next question: IS NOT UTILIZING TENSE SIMPLIFICATION
When it comes to time adverbials used as subordinate clauses, YES,
ABSOLUTELY. When it comes to the rest of the rule...you will never be
tested on this and you will never be expected to consistently apply
the extended rule as a result of formal instruction rather than
Good luck, Datere.