On Jun 24, 11:18 am, datere yahoo.com.tw> wrote:

Datere,

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
clause.)

...when I get home. (This cannot stand alone, and we'll call it a
subordinate clause.)

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
time, etc.)

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!!!

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

Swan 556.2

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.

Examples:
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,
WHEN)
Will you stay here until the plane takes off? (Time marker, UNTIL)
It will be interesting to see whether he recognizes you. (Conditional
marker, WHETHER)
I'll have a good time whether I win or lose. (Conditional marker,
WHETHER)
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
pronoun, WHO)
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.

Examples:
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).

Examples:
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
times)
If she rings, I'll tell her that I'll ring back later. (TWO DIFFERENT
FUTURE TIMES.)

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

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:

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

...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
happen.

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
not why.

Which begs the next question: IS NOT UTILIZING TENSE SIMPLIFICATION
DEAD WRONG???

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
informal acquisition.

Good luck, Datere.