Her voice was sharp and commanding: "I (not to go) home alone. Come on."

[Nonverbis]

This is from a textbook on grammar called "A Grammar of Present-day English" by I.P. Krylova.

The task is: Use the Present Indefinite or the Present Continuous to refer the actions in the following sentences to the future.

Her voice was sharp and commanding: "I (not to go) home alone. Come on."

I did: don't go. But the answer key gives "am not going". Well, my variant seems to be erroneous anyway. But why the Present Continuous is still a mystery to me.

The Present Continuous expresses actions which will take place in the near future due to one's previous decisions.

But in this task it seems to me that the decision is done at the moment of speaking. It is just about the immediate future.

Could you comment on this?

 

[jutfrank]

The present continuous is used here to express the woman's firm intention not to go home alone. It's commonly used like this in utterances firmly stating that we refuse to do or accept something.

I am not eating that.
If you think I'm wearing that, you're mistaken.
I'm sorry, we are not inviting her.
There's no way you're going out like that.

 

[Nonverbis]

The examples are pretty good. But the problem is that I can't find this meaning of the present continuous in any textbook.

Could you help me? Maybe a photo or scan of a textbook?

 

[5jj]

The Present Continuous expresses actions which will take place in the near future due to one's previous decisions.

Not necessarily. The decision can be made at the moment of speaking.

 

[Nonverbis]

I have found this in a textbook.
It is from Practical English Usage by Michael Swan.

So, now it is pretty understandable. And your examples are just perfect. But how did they expect me to carry out the exercise is a mystery to me - the textbook does not contain any explanation for this construction.

 

[5jj]

So, now it is pretty understandable.

It seemed to me to be pretty understandable when jutfrank told you that in post #2

 

[Nonverbis]

It seemed to me to be pretty understandable when jutfrank told you that in post #2

As a matter of fact it was not understandable at all because textbooks are not explaining that. You can see it for yourself. And if 4-5-6 textbooks of mine just don't mention this phenomenon, how can it be understandable? On the contrary - I was objectively sceptical about that.

 

[5jj]

As a matter of fact it was not understandable at all because textbooks are not explaining that. You can see it for yourself.

Bu jutfrank, a native speaker and experienced teacher and teacher trainer did explain that.

And if 4-5-6 textbooks of mine just don't mention this phenomenon, how can it be understandable?

I doubt if any textbook manages to cover every shade of possible meaning of every tense- and aspect-form. That is one of the advantages of a forum such as UE. Some of our members are very experienced teachers who can respond to many of your questions without being dependent on text books written for learners.