I need to be leaving soon/I need to leave soon

[shatilof]

I need to be leaving soon.
I need to leave soon.

Is there any special reason to choose the first option - to be leaving - instead of the more simple one - to leave?

 

[teechar]

They basically mean the same, but the first one can be a gentler option.
Compare:
I need to go soon.
and
I need to get going soon.
The one with the -ing suggests that the speaker needs to initiate (or even start getting ready for) the action of going/leaving.
Note also that you need to end your sentences with an appropriate punctuation mark (a full stop in the case of the above sentences).

 

[Tarheel]

I need to be leaving soon
I need to leave soon.

Is there any special reason to choose the first option - to be leaving - instead of the more simple one - to leave?

Either is possible (with the second more likely). Context is always the determiner.

 

[shatilof]

They basically mean the same, but the first one can be a gentler option.
Compare:
I need to go soon.
and
I need to get going soon.
The one with the -ing suggests that the speaker needs to initiate (or even start getting ready for) the action of going/leaving.
Note also that you need to end your sentences with an appropriate punctuation mark (a full stop in the case of the above sentences).

Yes, with "get" it is easier to feel the difference, that is why I avoided it in my examples. Let's say:

I have to go Vs. I have to be going

When would you choose the first or the second version? What would be the context?

 

[emsr2d2]

I don't think I'd use "I have to be going" on its own. Generally, I'd follow it with "soon" or "now" or even "five minutes ago" (I'd use the latter with a wry smile once I'd realised I'd meant to leave earlier).

I would probably say "I have to go" if I'm in a rush and I'm literally about to put on my coat, grab my bag and exit.

I'd add a time to that if I wanted to make sure that the listener(s) understood that there's a time limit - "I have to go at 10.30".

 

[shatilof]

I don't think I'd use "I have to be going" on its own. Generally, I'd follow it with "soon" or "now" or even "five minutes ago" (I'd use the latter with a wry smile once I'd realised I'd meant to leave earlier).

I would probably say "I have to go" if I'm in a rush and I'm literally about to put on my coat, grab my bag and exit.

I'd add a time to that if I wanted to make sure that the listener(s) understood that there's a time limit - "I have to go at 10.30".

Ok, a different context with the same set of tenses:

When would you say "I will live alone" and when "I will be living alone"?

 

[Tarheel]

1. I will live alone.
2. I will be living alone.

The second seems more natural to me.

 

[emsr2d2]

Ok, a different context with the same set of tenses:

When would you say "I will live alone" and when "I will be living alone"?

You haven't given us any context! What we say is connected to the context and to what other people are saying.

Helen: What do you think your living situation will be when you're 30?
Adam: I think I'll live alone until I'm about 25 and hopefully after that I'll get married and live with my wife.

Sarah: I gather you're moving to Spain. Where are you going to live?
Emily: I've found an amazing three-bedroomed flat. I'll be living there alone to start with but I imagine other people will move in at some point.

 

[shatilof]

1. I will live alone.
2. I will be living alone.

The second seems more natural to me.

I know, but I just don't know why and this is in fact my question

 

[shatilof]

You haven't given us any context! What we say is connected to the context and to what other people are saying.

Helen: What do you think your living situation will be when you're 30?
Adam: I think I'll live alone until I'm about 25 and hopefully after that I'll get married and live with my wife.

Sarah: I gather you're moving to Spain. Where are you going to live?
Emily: I've found an amazing three-bedroomed flat. I'll be living there alone to start with but I imagine other people will move in at some point.

I have not given any context because I am looking for the proper context for each on the phrases. Now I've got something tangible to think about. Cheers.

P.S. By the way, isn't it just "a three-bedroom flat"?

 

[emsr2d2]

I have not given any context

but in post #6 you said:

OK, a different context with the same set of tenses:

That suggested that you were providing context.

 

[Tarheel]

Context

My wife died. I will be living alone from now on.

 

[shatilof]

Context

My wife died. I will be living alone from now on.

Why not just "I will live..."? To show your sad sad (or joyful) future as a process which will take some time?

 

[emsr2d2]

Why not just "I will live..."? To show your sad sad (or joyful) future as a process which will take some time?

"I will be living alone ..." expresses the continuous aspect of the living alone. It started as soon as the speaker's wife died and continues for an indeterminate length of time.

 

[jutfrank]

I need to be leaving soon.

The continuous aspect adds a sense that the speaker is thinking at the back of his mind about a schedule.

I don't think I'd use "I have to be going" on its own. Generally, I'd follow it with "soon" or "now" or even "five minutes ago"

Yes, I think this illustrates what I'm saying. The use of these words supports the idea that there is a schedule to be followed.

 

[GoldfishLord]

I don't think I'd use "I have to be going" on its own. Generally, I'd follow it with "soon" or "now" or even "five minutes ago" (I'd use the latter with a wry smile once I'd realised I'd meant to leave earlier).

I would probably say "I have to go" if I'm in a rush and I'm literally about to put on my coat, grab my bag and exit.

I'd add a time to that if I wanted to make sure that the listener(s) understood that there's a time limit - "I have to go at 10.30".

I think that "I'd use the latter with a wry smile" is a main clause and that "once I'd realised I'd meant to leave earlier" is a if-clause.
So, I think that, if the main clause uses "would" + the base form of a main verb, the if-clause could use the simple past tense or the simple present tense, not the past perfect tense.

What's the reason "I'd realised I'd meant" was used instead of "I realised I meant"?

 

[Piscean]

"once I'd realised I'd meant to leave earlier" is an if-clause.

It isn't.

 

[Piscean]

Think of 'once' as meaning 'as soon as'.

 

[GoldfishLord]

I don't think I'd use "I have to be going" on its own. Generally, I'd follow it with "soon" or "now" or even "five minutes ago" (I'd use the latter with a wry smile once I'd realised I'd meant to leave earlier).

I would probably say "I have to go" if I'm in a rush and I'm literally about to put on my coat, grab my bag and exit.

I'd add a time to that if I wanted to make sure that the listener(s) understood that there's a time limit - "I have to go at 10.30".

Should "I'd realised I'd meant" be changed to "I have realised I have meant" if "I'd use" were to be changed to "I use"

 

[Tarheel]

@GoldfishLord Would you like to make a sentence out of that?