[Grammar] never-ending future

[Hucky]

Hiya,

As you can see, I am still dealing with the future tense. Yet, today´s issue is not a mere rehash, but another aspect. What I´d like to know is if other future forms as the one you usually find in grammar books (will/going to) can go with temporal clauses. In other words, can also the future continuous (3) and the present continuous (4) go with time clauses? Well, the example sentences are made up by me, and thus I am not absolutely sure if they are acceptable as real life examples. But you will never track down such a (constructed) overview of the respective cases anywhere. (In line with what you can find in common grammar books cases 1) and 2) are out of the question. So here they are:

1) I´ll see you tomorrow at 8 pm when I have spoken to Dave.
2) I´m going to see you tomorrow at 8 pm when I have spoken to Dave.
3) I`ll be seeing you tomorrow at 8 pm when I have spoken to Dave.
4) I´m seeing you tomorrow at 8 pm when I have spoken to Dave.

What do the pundits make of it?

Regards

Hucky

 

[5jj]

1) I´ll see you tomorrow at 8 pm when I have spoken to Dave.
2) I´m going to see you tomorrow at 8 pm when I have spoken to Dave.
3) I`ll be seeing you tomorrow at 8 pm when I have spoken to Dave.
4) I´m seeing you tomorrow at 8 pm when I have spoken to Dave.

They are not necessarily interchangeable but, in the right contexts, all of them are acceptable.

 

[Hucky]

Dear fivejedjon,

That´s exactly what I wanted to know! No need to emphasize how helpful you have been! Thanks so much and all the best!

Hucky

 

[riquecohen]

You can also use the future perfect. "I'll see you tomorrow at 8 p.m. when I will have spoken with Dave."

 

[The Dude]

Call me old-fashioned, but I would have said '... by when...' there.

 

[5jj]

Call me old-fashioned, but I would have said '... by when...' there.

If I were being old-fashioned, I'd say, "by which time...'.

 

[Hucky]

Dear Dude and fivejedjon,

There is nothing disparaging about being old-fashioned in itself, as longas it is correct or even better. What I`d like to know is if you consider your versions just as an alternative to the original simple when-clause or as preferable in terms of style. As such things are hard to pinpoint for a non-native speaker, I am interested in the way you assess the matter.

Hucky

 

[5jj]

For me 'by' is more natural than 'when' with a future perfect construction.

 

[Hucky]

Dear riquecohen,

Your version reminds me of a story a colleague of mine told me the other day. He spoke of an American student of his who always uses a future tense in a temporal clause justifying himself by asserting that that is the common way to do it in the US now. Your statement seems to support this. Can you confirm it?

Hucky

Maybe, I´ll start a new thread about this issue.

 

[The Dude]

For me 'by' is more natural than 'when' with a future perfect construction.

For me too, always.

 

[riquecohen]

Dear riquecohen,

Your version reminds me of a story a colleague of mine told me the other day. He spoke of an American student of his who always uses a future tense in a temporal clause justifying himself by asserting that that is the common way to do it in the US now. Your statement seems to support this. Can you confirm it?
I see nothing in my post that suggests that this is the the common way to do this in the US now. I was merely presenting an alternative.
Hucky

Maybe, I´ll start a new thread about this issue.