🧑‍🎓 SPOTLIGHT ON ENGLISH: Future time in dependent clauses. Advanced English grammar. 👀

[@FarhadNadir-gw2gh]

What a great tutor you are sir

[@anosensei]

Thank you for the feedback, Farhad!

[@Kennnnn14]

Hi, Teacher! I am so grateful for your videos that are so helpful to my understanding. I have a question about "the" when used with nouns like "mountains", "lake" without being specific about them, for example : "I love hiking in the mountains", here it does not refer to any specific mountains but any mountains and this is idiomatic to use "the" this way. And my question is : how about using it to talk about the mountains themselves ? Because in "I love hiking in the mountains", the mountains is only used to talk about a location in which hiking takes place. How about saying : "The mountains are a great place to relax and enjoy nature" ? Is it idiomatic ? Here I'm trying to use that sentence to refer to any mountains in general and, of course, to talk about the mountains themselves rather than talking about where something happens or is located like "I love hiking", where ? "In the mountains", but what's being talked about is merely the mountains. So, I am curious if it's not idiomatic to use it this way and I wonder if "mountains" without "the" is the one to use to convey this idea rather than "the mountains" or even both of them. Thanks a lot, Teacher!

[@anosensei]

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.

[@Kennnnn14]

@@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 ?

[@anosensei]

@@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.

[@Kennnnn14]

@@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 🙏🏼

[@anosensei]

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

[@GyanodayPublicSchoolBhitari]

Sir, thank you so much much for such lovely videos ! I just wanted to know how to know which Will expresses future in future - Will in the principal clause or subordinate clause(noun clause / adjective clause ? WILL in each adjective clause of this video expresses future in future and WILL of each of its pricipal clause refers to future . Is this a rule that WILL of adjective clause is future in future and WILL of its pricipal clause is future ? What is difference between the following sentences ? Also, below are two sentences . Can WILL of the THAT CLAUSE in each of the sentences is future in future ? 1. I will tell a story that you will write 2. I will tell the story that you will write.

[@anosensei]

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).

[@GyanodayPublicSchoolBhitari]

@@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.

[@iloveengland5]

Hi, Sir! Thanks for the lesson! I have a specific question about if clauses that sometimes confuse me. I have seen and heard people say "I don't mind if you give the book to me tomorrow" using the present tense in the if clause to refer to the future. If we referred to the future, this would make sense if the future tense were used in the main clause but the present tense "I don't mind" is used instead here. So, wouldn't it be the future tense in the if clause if the main clause used the present tense to refer to the future like this sentence ? Could you explain ? This has the same issue with "There's no point in continuing the relationship if you feel sad again" for the if clause to refer to the future. Are those 2 sentences correct? If so, why present tense again here ? Is it idiomatic ? Is it grammatically correct like this ? What if I used the future tense instead ? Thank you, Sir! Much Appreciated.

[@anosensei]

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.

[@iloveengland5]

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

[@anosensei]

@@iloveengland5 You're welcome!

[@Louisiana188]

Thank you a lot, Sir! I have a little confusion about the third conditional structure. Which is correct between these 2 sentences below ? 1. "If that boy who I had talked to had showed up at the party, I would have been happy and given money to everyone who I had met." 2. "If that boy who I talked to had showed up at the party, I would have been happy and given money to everyone who I met." Everything in this context did not happen, so, I'm wondering if in who clauses, we should also use the past perfect (who I had talked to, and, who I had met ) or not in the if clause and the main clause. If either is correct, would you explain why ? Thank you in advance 👋

[@anosensei]

The first "had" is optional and the last one is incorrect. In my (British) English, the past participle of "show" is "shown", not "showed". Strictly speaking, the first "who" should be "whom" and the second one (which should also be "whom") is unnecessary: If that boy whom I [had] talked to had shown up at the party, I would have been happy and given money to everyone I met."

[@Louisiana188]

@@anosensei Could you tell me why it's optional in the if clause and it is incorrect in the main clause ? I was told to use the past perfect for conditional type 3. So, I should also use the past simple in the and clause in : "If I had talked to him and she gave the banana to him, he would be happy now." Shouldn't I ?

[@anosensei]

@@Louisiana188 I'm sorry, but my focus is on making videos, etc. If you need detailed advice on language usage your best bet would be to engage the services of a language teacher.

[@GyanodayPublicSchoolBhitari]

​@@Louisiana188I don't know much but , past perfect is optional when from the context it is clear which action/event happend first. In this example If the boy who I had met had showed up to the party, I would have been happy. The party was yesterday( past time ). I met the boy before yesterday . Here it is clear that I met the boy before the party . In this case , past simple and past perfect either is okay. So this sentence is correct If the boy ( that/who/whom) I (had) met had showed up to the party, I would have been happy.

[@anosensei]

@@GyanodayPublicSchoolBhitari Thank you for this, Gyanoday School! Yes, that is a good explanation. I would still prefer "shown" to "showed" as the past participle of "show", but "showed" is sometimes used and is also considered correct.

[@Mollen66]

Hi, Sir! It's getting interesting now because I have a context to give to ask you a question! If I want to retire or stop using social media and I want to tell everyone that follows me there that there won't be no more fun stuff posted on my account. Which sentence is correct? 1. There will be no more fun stuff I will do here. 2. There will be no more fun stuff I do here. I want both clauses to refer to the future but I am not sure if I should use will twice since I am already using it once in "there will be no more fun stuff". Could you explain? Thank you in advance, Sir!

[@anosensei]

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?

[@Mollen66]

@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?

[@anosensei]

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