“We’ll all die!” vs. “We’re all going to die!”
As writers — and we’re all writers, whether by profession or necessity — we ought to know the rules of language, just as a football player ought to know the rules of the game. Knowing them gives us the power to use them in our favor.
For example, during a game this last season, Packer quarterback Aaron Rogers knew the rule about 12 men on the field, saw that the opponent was making a substitution, and hurried to snap the ball before the retreating player had left the field. The resulting penalty helped the Packers defeat the Lions and win the NFC North Division. Go Pack!
Yet not all writers study grammar and usage. Some just rely on knowing English as their native language. That means, however, that they learned English entirely by imitating other people: first their parents, then other people around them, and finally other writers — good writers, we hope.
You could learn to play football the same way. Yet pro players study the game in excruciating detail, including the rule book.
So here’s an excruciating grammar detail: the main differences in usage between “will” and “going to.”
Going to/gonna:
plans and intentions
predictions about the near future
events outside people’s control
commands
Will/shall:
a future fact
conditional ideas and expressions
speculation
requests and offers
“We’ll all die!” might express a future fact — perhaps in answer to the question, “What happens to us in the Keynesian long run?” (Note: the link is to a J. Bradford DeLong article that probably tells you more than you wanted to know.)
“We’re all going to die!” might be a despairing commentary on events outside of the speaker’s control — perhaps uttered on the night of the Trump presidential victory. Perhaps by me.
This explanation only skims the fascinating details of the grammar and usage of expressions of the future in English. Here are links to a couple of lessons a bit more in depth:
http://www.grammarbank.com/will-vs-going-to.html
http://www.perfect-english-grammar.com/will-or-be-going-to.html
The more you know, the better you can write. You can use, bend, and break the rules, but only if you know them cold.
— Sue Burke
For example, during a game this last season, Packer quarterback Aaron Rogers knew the rule about 12 men on the field, saw that the opponent was making a substitution, and hurried to snap the ball before the retreating player had left the field. The resulting penalty helped the Packers defeat the Lions and win the NFC North Division. Go Pack!
Yet not all writers study grammar and usage. Some just rely on knowing English as their native language. That means, however, that they learned English entirely by imitating other people: first their parents, then other people around them, and finally other writers — good writers, we hope.
You could learn to play football the same way. Yet pro players study the game in excruciating detail, including the rule book.
So here’s an excruciating grammar detail: the main differences in usage between “will” and “going to.”
Going to/gonna:
plans and intentions
predictions about the near future
events outside people’s control
commands
Will/shall:
a future fact
conditional ideas and expressions
speculation
requests and offers
“We’ll all die!” might express a future fact — perhaps in answer to the question, “What happens to us in the Keynesian long run?” (Note: the link is to a J. Bradford DeLong article that probably tells you more than you wanted to know.)
“We’re all going to die!” might be a despairing commentary on events outside of the speaker’s control — perhaps uttered on the night of the Trump presidential victory. Perhaps by me.
This explanation only skims the fascinating details of the grammar and usage of expressions of the future in English. Here are links to a couple of lessons a bit more in depth:
http://www.grammarbank.com/will-vs-going-to.html
http://www.perfect-english-grammar.com/will-or-be-going-to.html
The more you know, the better you can write. You can use, bend, and break the rules, but only if you know them cold.
— Sue Burke
date
newest »
newest »
I'm sorry didn't make myself clear. There is no single way to speak of the Keynesian future -- but all those ways imply slightly different meanings, and we should know the differences.You can use simple present to speak about the future: "The plane arrives at three o'clock today." This is often used when something is part of a timetable. Keynes actually said: "In the long run, we are all dead." This uses the simple present of "to be." It implies that there is a timetable-like nature to our lives, and I think this adds strength to the statement because it emphasizes that this fact is easy to foresee and other economists should have been seeing it.
For anything we wish to express, there may be more than one right way to express it. My point is that if you know grammar and usage, you can make deliberate, conscious choices to add creativity and subtlety as well as clarity to your work.
What's boring? Also, you two (be)friend each other, since you are both Hispanophiles (if that's the word).
The function of grammar is to reduce confusion. You ought to be able to use any form of grammar that isn't confusing.
Not that we don't have our pet peeves. If I read 'could of' one more time I'm going to go on a cane-wielding rampage. Most sighted people will be able to dodge me, but I can flail quite a bit.
are Lastly, Lions? the who