This is such a great comment! The fact that there are high school students who care about this stuff - and who think about it deeply, as you clearly did - is the kind of thing that leaves me confident that the future is in very good hands and those who bemoan "the youth of today" are about as wrong as anyone ever could be. 🔥

Thank you & you're welcome! This is one of my personal favourites; the visuals took me a while, but it was worth it!

You're welcome. Thank you for the feedback!

So glad you found it & liked it!

You're welcome!

Neither sentence sounds natural. We would say something like, "I will not be doing any more fun stuff here". Your attempt to use the dummy subject "there" and a following clause just doesn't work. Your post also contains a double negative, "there won't be no more fun stuff". That should be either "there will be no more fun stuff" or "there won't be any more fun stuff". And the punctuation isn't quite right: - If I want to retire or stop using social media and I want to tell everyone that follows me there that there will be no more fun stuff posted on my account, which sentence is correct?

@anosensei Thank you! But I'm still curious though about that case in which there are two clauses in that context. What if I change it to: "There will be things I do / I will do to you tonight and you will beg me to stop." Let's say, I want to do something to my friend and I want to tell him that there will be some things [that] I will do / I do to him tonight? There are two clauses here (there will be and i do/will do = that clause) referring to the future. But which should I use? Double will or single will? And why?

@@Mollen66 "And" is a coordinated conjunction, so the two clauses need a balanced structure. In this case, that means using "will" in both clauses.

Thank you so much for the feedback. I too have spent more of my life outside England (in Spain and Japan) than I have in it! Hardy's poetry takes me back to family holidays in Dorset many years ago.

Your sentence, "I knew her since 2009 and we fell out of touch in 2015", is incorrect. When used in this way, "since" means from a time in the past right up to the present, and it is used with the present perfect. If you knew her and stopped knowing her in the past then you could say, ""I knew her from 2009 to 2015, when we fell out of touch." Or, if you want to say that you still know her (you know who she is), but you are no longer in touch, you could say, "I have known her since 2009, but we fell out of touch in 2015."

@anosensei Thanks for answering! I didn't make the sentence up, I took it from a discussion on Google and a native american says the opposite that the sentence is possible, that's why I'm so confused now. Some people say it's possible to use the past simple in the main clause in since sentences when since means a starting point in time, and someone native american even says he can imagine hearing "I wanted to be a lumberjack ever since I was a kid" using the past simple in the main clause, but you said it's wrong. Could you clarify and help me? Because it's one of the most confusing areas in English for me.

@@tyoahsan6617 There aren't very many grammatical differences between British English and American English, but this is one of them! I can only tell you what is correct from the point of view of British English. Here is a link you may find helpful: www.cambridge.org/elt/blog/2015/10/12/grammar-beyond-9/

@@anosensei That's interesting! I just don't get the idea of using the past simple that way! Because why not use from or from to? Something like: I knew her from 2009 [to 2010]. What idea does it give when we are using the past simple in the main clause in since sentences actually? Because I don't know when it's possible or at least natural in AE.

@@tyoahsan6617 I'm British, so I don't use the past simple in that way myself and I don't know the rules and conventions that govern the American usage. All I can tell you is that I don't have much problem understanding American speakers when they use the past simple.

This is a curious case. Firstly, we need to note that these are not, in fact, "double relative clauses referring to the same object (email)", as you state. In the first "that" clause "email" is the _subject_ of "contains" and "that" is necessary. And no, we cannot omit the second "that" from ""I have an email that contains a document and that my boss just sent to me." We can say: 1. "I have an email that contains a document" 2. "I have an email [that] my boss just sent to me." "That" in 1 cannot be omitted, since "email" is the subject of the following clause, but "that" _can_ be omitted in 2, since the subject of the following clause is "my boss". However, if we combine 1 and 2, as you have done, we need to keep "that" in both clauses to maintain parallel structure. Rather than "that", I think most native speakers would probably omit "and": 3. "I have an email that contains a document [that] my boss just sent to me." Now we can omit the second "that", but the meaning is slightly different. With the second "that" it is ambiguous; the clause "my boss just sent me" could refer either to "an email that contains a document" or simply to "a document". If the second "that" is omitted, it really seems as if he clause "my boss just sent to me" refers to the document, not to the email. To avoid ambiguity or confusion, we might say something like: 4. "I have just received an email from my boss that contains a document." 5. "My boss just sent me an email containing a document." Finally, while "contained" isn't wrong, we tend to talk about files being "attached to" emails, rather than "contained in" them. 6. My boss just sent me an email with a document file attached to it. 7. I received an email from my boss with an attached document. Or even: 8. My boss just emailed me a document.

@anosensei Thank you so much!

@@rough12819 You're welcome!

The beauty of poetry (and literature generally) lies, not so much in what it "means" as in what it means _to us_ . From that point of view, if this is what this poem means to you, then that is fine. I have to say, though, that Blake himself, while he believed in God, was highly critical of many aspects of Christianity, and I'm not sure that what you say here reflects his intentions in writing this poem! I think it's valid to see the apple and the tree as an allusion to the Garden of Eden and to place the poem in the context of human sin and moral failings. However, it seems to me that Blake is writing about the nature and effects of anger, rather than about humans' general ability to do good. I feel we need to see what he says here in the context of statements like the following: "Without contraries is no progression. Attraction and repulsion, reason and energy, love and hate, are necessary to human existence. "From these contraries spring what the religious call Good and Evil. Good is the passive that obeys reason; Evil is the active springing from Energy. "Good is heaven. Evil is hell." (William Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell") From this we can see that, for Blake, both good and evil and heaven and hell are "necessary to human existence". If you haven't already done so, I would urge you to watch my other videos on Blake. The playlist link is here: kzbin.info/aero/PLzVb6yL_jY69kJRNsa_3wE54b8Tf8jp-b

I see the dualism within the poem, the contrasts of good and bad, harbouring hate and surface appearances, there are so many themes here and my analysis wasn't meant to be definitive, just another way of seeing it, on top of what most people agree is there already. Your quote from Heaven and Hell is a good example of Blake's struggle with religion and the self. You made me think of the dark satanic mills in industrial England at the time of Blake and how that could be considered progress, to some people, and evil to others. You are right about the difficulty of deconstructing being often down to interpretation and there is a danger of bringing something to a poem that isn't there or intended by the author, especially if we can't get the author's final say. I will look into your link, sounds interesting.

@timelanguid4813 You make a good point about the Industrial Revolution. Blake did stand in opposition to the way things were going, and decried the scientific method as "Newton's sleep", not so much as a Luddite as from the point of view of a defender of "vision" and "imagination", which seemed to him to have no place in the scientific method and the rational philosophy of the Enlightenment. Blake, like some of the other Romantics, sang the praises of the medieval Gothic, while at the same time decrying what he saw as the repressive stranglehold of the medieval Church, but this harking back to some kind of golden age of innocence and happiness seems to be a recurring feature of the human psyche. I came across a version of it recently in Yuval Noah Harari's _Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind_, who thinks the rot set in much earlier with the Agricultural Revolution, some 12,000 years ago. You raise an interesting question when you speak of the "danger of bringing something to a poem that isn't there or intended by the author". The first is a valid point; sometimes our preconceptions prevent us from seeing what a poem or other work of literature is really about. I discuss this in one of my "Journey through poetry" videos (kzbin.info/www/bejne/rWGse2WVhLidl5o). The second relates to the "intentional fallacy", a whole can of worms stemming from the question of whether what the poet or author thinks they are writing about should play any part in our apprehension of the finished result. This takes us right back to Plato, who says he talked to many poets and found they were the last people from whom one might get a fruitful insight into what they had written, concluding that they were essentially conduits for the muse that expressed itself through them.

Using the present tense to refer to future events is standard in if-clauses. I expect you are familiar with constructions like "If I have enough money [in the future], I will go to the cinema [also in the future]". The examples you give are similar in their use of the if-clause to refer to the future. The difference is that they are also talking about the present time: "I don't mind [now/the present] if you give the book to me tomorrow [i.e., in the future]." "There is no point [now, at this moment] in continuing the relationship if you feel sad again [in the future]." If the speaker wanted to talk about the future, they could say: "I won't mind [future] if you give the book to me tomorrow [future]." "There will be no point [future] in continuing the relationship if you feel sad again [future]." Note that, in all of these cases, the verb in the if-clause is in present tense but refers to the future. Note also that, strictly speaking, English does not have a "future tense"; it just has various ways of referring to the future.

​@@anosenseiIt helps a lot! Appreciate it, Sir!

@@iloveengland5 You're welcome!

I would certainly like to think so! Poor Keats - he suffered financial difficulties due to a mismanaged inheritance, abandoned his medical training to write poetry that received little recognition and a fair amount of mockery in his lifetime, was unable to marry the woman he loved, lost loved ones to illness, and died young after a painful battle with tuberculosis. One can certainly hope that he lived in hope of something better - and even that, from some miraculous vantage point, he can see how much we treasure what he left behind.

Thank you for the feedback! I hope this video helps you to understand this area of English grammar.

Yes indeed! The long slow waning of Milton's star perhaps says more about society than about him.

@@anosenseiI feel that Milton is not primarily mourning the loss of Edward King, per se, but mourning more the loss of an archetype of a genuine shepherd, as King might have been, or at least had promise of becoming, as opposed to a fake shepherd, a hireling. A bit of word play here, but it is not lost on me that the Greek word for shepherd is ‘poimen’ which looks similar to, and sounds simikar to, the Greek word for poem, ‘poiema,’ thus, Lycidas could perhaps be seen as a poiema about a poimen.

@@timothyallen6457 "mourning more the loss of an archetype of a genuine shepherd, as King might have been" Yes, I think there's a case to be made for that. I'm less persuaded about the wordplay! I did have plans for a third video, but I don't know if I'll ever get round to it!

You're very welcome. Don't forget to check out my other videos!

For the use of dialect, you would probably benefit from an article such as this one: www.jstor.org/stable/48568881#:~:text=Hardy%20considers%20the%20Dorset%20language,as%20respectable%20as%20Standard%20English.. It is on JSTOR, which is a subscription service that gives some free access to individuals. You will also find many other articles there that discuss Hardy's novels and poetry.

Thank you! Glad you liked it.

Thank you, Reuben!

@@anosensei I’m the one who thanks

I'm glad you liked it! I've made about 500 videos on medieval literature, Shakespeare, romantic poetry, etc., as well as videos on English grammar and other topics. Please check them out! 🙂

I'm glad you like it! I've made quite a few videos on medieval literature (kzbin.info/aero/PLzVb6yL_jY69JLMMPT3CBCuE_9vHIAUkG) and other topics (e.g., kzbin.info/aero/PLzVb6yL_jY68kH6JJNJzEpp8OpjVPn77h).

This person goes to the trouble of producing a video to share his knowledge about a subject and all you have in response is this childish and rude comment? That's pretty sad, in my opinion.

@@21coolcat21 Youth is wasted on the young (well, some of them)!

That's a very good question! We might sometimes hear, "what would be the first thing you do?", but it sounds a bit odd. The usual expression would be, "what would be the first thing you would do?" ("did" would be wrong here). So we have the following constructions: - what will be the first thing you do? - what would be the first thing you would do? We do not use "will" in the main clause in constructions like the first one, but it is perfectly correct to use "would" in constructions of the second type. That's confusing, and I'm glad you pointed it out. So, how can we explain it? Most grammar books and websites will simply say that "will" indicates a real possibility, while "would" indicates a hypothetical possibility, and the repetition of "would" simply emphasizes that we are talking about something hypothetical here. But you are lucky! I am not like most grammar books and websites, and I can give you a better explanation. Rather than thinking of "would" being repeated, it would be better to think that, in constructions of this kind, "would" needs a modal verb in the main clause in a way that "will" does not. You see, we can also say: "If you met that celebrity in real life, what would be the first thing you *_might_* do?" "If you met that celebrity in real life, what would be the first thing you *_could_* do?" "If you met that celebrity in real life, what would be the first thing you *_should_* do?" So we are not just talking about the repetition of "would"; we are looking at that fact that "if" clauses with "would" normally require a modal verb in the main clause in constructions of this kind. Aren't you glad you asked me and not someone else? 🙂

@@anosensei Thanks! I think it has to be about future in the future that we don't need to repeat will as it doesn't refer to the future in the future. But could you tell me the logic of how would doesn't work the same way? Would and will both refer to the future, so, why not "What would be the first thing you did" as it refers to the same future? Thanks! I need to work this logic out.

@@rough12819 I think I've said as much as I can. Good luck with your study of English grammar!

These can be confusing, and sometimes they may result in ambiguity. In general, though, if the second verb has no overt subject, we usually assume that it is a form of elision and that the auxiliary has been omitted. So, "I have met him and talked about the matter" means: - "I have met him and [I have] talked about the matter." We could also say, "I have met him and have talked about the matter." If we say, "I have met him and I talked about the matter," giving the second verb a subject but no auxiliary, then it is clear that we have moved from present perfect in the first verb to past simple in the second. Elision is natural to native speakers, but my advice to you as a learner would be to avoid using it unless you're very confident that your meaning is clear. As you become more proficient you will become more and more confident about when and how to use it.

@@anosensei Oh yes that's confusing! Would you even be able to tell me why these are all below using is twice when it's clear it refers to the same subject ? 1. "The software is user-friendly, is customizable, and is compatible with various platforms." 2. "He is generous but is not very patient." 3. "She is kind and is also very intelligent." I heard people use that kind of structure of the three sentences. I also was told to repeat it if the sentence is too long as in: "I am happy to have successfully completed the certification course by the Chamber of Commerce and to have acquired a certification in XYZ." Here, "to have" is repeated because the sentence is too long for it not to be repeated.

@@Mollen66 It's not a matter of grammar. Ellipsis is a stylistic choice.

Perhaps you should watch my video playlist on basic transformational grammar. I think it gives a fairly clear explanation of when and how to use the third-person singular "-s" on the verb, and the diagrams are an efficient way of noting it in your notebook or explaining it to someone else: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oaDShId_grOMqMk. If you prefer, you can also watch it as a single video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/a53ci3xpmb-ooM0.

@@anosensei are you also referring to the historical explanation of the incident?

You're welcome! Please check the updated version of this video, which has better sound quality and additional information not included in this version.

@@anosensei Oh, thank you very much! I also have one question, if I may: can the analogy of the "winds of poesy" Keats evokes be compared to the skylark as a symbol for poetry in Shelley's "To a Skylark" ? Thank you very much!

@@fred2018 Yes. There are several points of comparison. Keats's "wings of poesy" suggest poetry's ability to lift the poet's imagination and spirit, while Shelley's skylark is described as an "unbodied joy" that soars and sings high above the earth. Both poets use these symbols to represent an idealized conception of poetry: Keats portrays poetic imagination as having wings that can transport the mind beyond ordinary experience and Shelley calls the skylark an "immortal" being that embodies pure poetic expression. But there are also some differences. Keats's nightingale is more abstract, while Shelley's skylark is more a part of the real world of nature. Keats's "wings of poesy" are something he aspires to use, in an active way, while Shelley's skylark is an external source of inspiration that the poet observes in a more passive kind of way.

@@anosensei THANK YOU !

The continuous form expresses activity over a period of time and the simple form expresses the general situation at the time of speaking. Both are applicable here and both could be used, but the simple form - "I'm ten weeks into my pregnancy now and I rarely eat any vegetables" - is shorter and more usual. You may find the following video helpful: kzbin.info/www/bejne/imrSqoaZrbt8pLs

​@@anosenseiThat's interesting! So, if using "I rarely eat any vegetables" is more usual because it's shorter, then what if, in that sentence, i take out the adverb and just say "I don't eat any vegetables"? Is it also more usual because it's shorter? So, the sentence becomes "I'm 10 weeks into my pregnancy now and I don't eat any vegetables."

@@rough12819 Of course you can say it, but "I don't eat any vegetables" and "I rarely eat any vegetables" don't mean the same thing. If you want to keep it short, you could omit "any" without changing the meaning significantly.

​@@anosenseiThat suprises me a lot! Because it contradicts with what I've been taught! If we have a timeframe here (ten weeks into my pregnancy/or these days) we would use the present continous and not the present simple. But you just said that the simple form could be used there. But how ? The present simple is used for something that happens in general, but, in this context, it's only around this period of time and not general. I would've expected "I'm not eating". Would you clarify? Because it goes against students expectation.

@@rough12819 I'm sorry you were taught wrong. If you want to know more about this, you can book a private lesson with me (but I am not cheap!) - or you could just ask an AI bot, which will give you a pretty good explanation free.

> "During my internship, I have often been reading a lot of articles and books." > Should I use "I have often read"? Or do both work? They are both awkward, but not for the reason you seem to think. The word "often" is not natural here; It's enough to say you've read/been reading a lot of articles and books. That expresses the idea that you have engaged in the action of reading many articles and books; "often" makes it sound as if you have been in engaged in the action of reading many articles and books *_many times_*, so you read many articles and books on Monday, and then you read many articles and books again on Tuesday, and so on. Do you see what I mean? Taking out "often", both sentences work. The continuous form suggests that it is more of an ongoing activity, while the simple form gives the impression that it's more of a completed action, but both are correct and the difference is slight.

@@anosensei That's helpful! But which is more common in this context? Or are both equally common? "I have read" and "I have been reading" in my context and sentence.

@@shalmar14 The simple form is shorter and generally more common.

@@anosensei How so? Many native speakers use the present perfect continous for something that has been happening in a particular period of time. In this case, it's focusing on "During my internship", so, it's a specific period of time. So why not the present perfect continous that is more common? I think it's not natural to say: "I have made sandwiches for 10 minutes now", and for the same reason, i think we should use the present perfect continous in my internship example. Could you clarify?

@@shalmar14 > i think we should use the present perfect continuous in my internship example. You are welcome to your opinion. I have already told you that both are correct. If you want to discuss this further, you can book a private lesson with me (but I am not cheap!). Alternatively, you could continue the discussion with an AI bot.

Thank you for your comment. Most developed countries have moved away from people carrying weapons and defending themselves, and accepting that policing is the job of the police. Over time, that's led to a general de-escalation of violence, and even criminals don't carry weapons because they know the sentence will be much, much stiffer if they are caught. The United States is pretty much the lone exception. Criminals carry guns, so non-criminals carry guns to protect themselves. I'm not sure what I would do personally if I were living in that kind of society, so I wouldn't presume to judge what others do, but I do hope that the United States will find a way to de-escalate violence. The statistics are pretty alarming! inquisitivebird.substack.com/p/crime-in-the-usa

Thank you for the feedback!

Hi, Pete! Yes, something like that, I suppose. These early modern women were certainly a lot less staid than their better-known 19th-century counterparts!

@@anosensei I also like to read a long way back on the issues around culture and sex. One of my favoured reads is "The Worth of Women" by Moderata Fonte (Modesta Pozzo) the which dates back to 1600. I have a translation edited and translated by Virginia Cox. It is not erotic fiction, but there are many unexpected passages in the text. You probably know the book.

@@PeterHarveyUK Yes, indeed. Debates we were taught to think of as originating with Mary Wollstonecraft or Catherine Macaulay were taking place in the early modern period or even earlier. The Urania belongs to an outmoded genre, but I am constantly surprised by how "modern" people like Anne Bradstreet, Margaret Cavendish and Mary Astell sometimes sound.

@@anosensei Well, Chaucer's Wife of Bath does not correspond very well with the standard depiction of women as repressed sweeties who did not dare to say or do anything bold or obstreporous. And then there's The Miller's Tale!

@@PeterHarveyUK Indeed, and many others treading the fine line between exemplifying and critiquing the misogynistic norms of the society in which they lived. Even the ancient world furnishes examples of women's voices raised in protest at male attitudes. Sappho, Aspasia of Miletus and Hypatia of Alexandria among the Greeks, Hortensia and Sulpicia among the Romans, Matreyi and Gargi in the Upanishads. Heck, the oldest author known to us - Enheduanna of Mesopotamia - was a woman, emphasising female deities and the role of women thousands of years ago!

Full disclosure, someone contacted me on the Ano sensei Facebook page and asked if I could make a video on this sonnet. If not for that, he wouldn't have been top of my list!

You are welcome!

One of the best things in Japan!

You are welcome!

You're very welcome!

Yes, they're OK. "After hope, we often use present verb forms even when there is reference to the future" (dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/hope). That applies to present perfect and present continuous as well as to present simple.

​@@anosenseiBut are they actually idiomatic ? Because I haven't seen any natives use the present perfect continous or simple to refer to the future in place of the future perfect continous and simple with "hope". Is it common ?

@@tyoahsan6617 You won't hear it often, but it's not wrong. Do exact phrase searches on Google to find real-life examples.

@@anosensei Thank you so much for your help! So, to wrap it up, I wonder if the future perfect simple/continous is more common to use than the present perfect simple/continous with "hope" to refer to the future. Because you only said "You won't hear it often", so, I wonder which tenses are more common to refer to the future with "hope" ( Is it the future perfect simple/continous or is it the present perfect simple/continous ?) Thanks once again!

You're welcome!

Well, maybe! I suppose I'm like everyone - sometimes I do silly things. But thank you - I hope you enjoyed the video!

Sorry, I missed this when you posted it and am just catching up. You're a descendant of Richard Quiney? That's fascinating! Yes, the marriage took place a couple of months before her father's death. They hadn't obtained the necessary licence from the bishop and Thomas (and quite likely Judith along with him) was excommunicated for a few months as a result. To add to their woes, Thomas's lover had a baby a month after the wedding, but died in childbirth, along with the child. Yes, I can imagine dad was upset about the whole thing! Clearly, you know all that - and perhaps more - but I'm adding it because I thought others might be interested.

@@anosensei Thank you for the kind reply and for adding the information. I have that info, as well as the woman's name that died in childbirth, but was too lazy to look it up in my family tree.

@@EthelredFudpucker-jn2df She was one Margaret Wheeler, about whom nothing much is known.

@@anosensei Thanks. I recognized the name as soon as I read your kind reply.

Thank you for the feedback. Yes, that sums up what I aim for pretty well! 👍

I'm glad you found it and enjoyed it. Please check out my other stuff - and tell all your friends! 🤓

We wouldn't say 2. It is incorrect. 1 is grammatically possible, but it's very unusual; it would mean that there is an unspecified story that contains a difference. 3 is the normal expression. We know which story we are talking about and we are saying that there is a difference in that story. But you would need to be comparing the story with something else. Maybe your brother told you a story about something that happened, and your sister told you a very similar story, but her story is a bit different. Then you would say, "There is a difference in the story my sister told me", or, "There is a difference between the two stories." Please study the following web page: www.wallstreetenglish.com/exercises/the-complete-guide-to-definite-and-indefinite-articles

@@anosensei I haven't still understood about two things after reading it : Would you tell me in what possible contexts we could use sentence 1 naturally and grammatically ? Because if you said it's possible, there should be contexts for it naturally and grammatically. And also why is sentence 3 the normal expression ?

@@Mollen66 Hi. Basically, I'm just here to make educational videos. It looks as if you need a language teacher. Good luck!

Thank you, Jhangir. Please tell all your friends!

I'm glad you find the videos useful. Your sentences using "the" are idiomatic and correct. Omitting "the" is still grammatical, but it's not what we normally say.

@@anosensei > Omitting "the" is still grammatical, but it's not what we normally say Which sentence are you talking about ? If it's "The mountains are a great place to relax and enjoy nature", I am shocked because why is omitting "the" not the one english people say ? Because usually if something is general and countable and we refer to every one of it, shouldn't it be plural with no article ? Example : "Cars are better than bikes". In sentences with prepositions of location like "I love hiking in the mountains", I have no problem understanding that it refers to any mountains in general to talk about a location. Or "I love going to the mountains" to say that mountains are generally the place i love going to But in the sentence "The mountains are a great place to relax and enjoy nature", it is not about "where" like "in the mountains" to talk about a location (I love going to the mountains = The mountains here talks about a location rather than mountains themselves), but it's about mountains themselves and here I'd like it to mean any mountains. Could you make it clearer ?

@@Kennnnn14 Sorry if it wasn't clear. In the case of "(the) mountains are a great place to relax and enjoy nature", both are possible and both sound natural. If there is a slight preference, for me it would be "mountains are great places" and "the mountains are a great place", but it's just a matter of nuance, not a big thing.

@@anosensei What's the real difference here ? There must be a difference even if it's little one but I'd like to know. What makes "the mountains" different from "mountains" in "The mountains are a great place to relax and enjoy nature" ? Even if it's a little difference, I'd like you to tell me for me to learn. Big thanks so far 🙏🏼

@@Kennnnn14Hi! I'm basically here to make videos. It seems to me that what you need is a language instructor.

I'm not sure what the problem is. If I tell a story to someone and that person writes the story down, then the second action obviously happens after the first one, so if the first one is in the future then the second one is the "future in the future, so the second "will" expresses the "future in the future". That should be clear from the video. The difference between "a story" and "the story" is the difference between *_any_* story ("a" story, indefinite) and *_one particular_* story ("the" story, definite).

@@anosensei thank you very much for your valuable time you gave to reply to the comment ! Actually, I wrote the sentence ' I will tell the story that you will write' to mean - You are going to write a stroy and I will tell that story to my kids. And With the first sentence I wanted to say - I will tell you a story and then you will write it down. If I was correct, then the second WILL in the second sentence is not future in future. I am a little bit confused about how to know which action happens first , which second.

I'm glad you find my videos helpful. - When I was riding a bicycle, It started to rain. - I was riding a bicycle when it started to rain. Both sentences are grammatical and express the same basic idea, but the second sounds more natural.

@@anosensei Thank you so much for the reply !

@@GyanodayPublicSchoolBhitari You are very welcome!

You are most welcome!