tomorrow vs. by tomorrow

[Nicky_K]

Hello to everyone, who reads it!!!

Please tell me, what is the difference between 'tomorrow' and 'by tomorrow'.

e.g. " I'll do it tomorrow "

and " I'll do it by tomorrow "

thnx

[Gillnetter]

Hello to everyone, who reads it!!!

Please tell me, what is the difference between 'tomorrow' and 'by tomorrow'.

e.g. " I'll do it tomorrow "

and " I'll do it by tomorrow "

thnx

I will do it tomorrow - I will start and finish the project tomorrow.
I will do it by tomorrow - I may have started this project some time in the past, now, in the immediate future, or I may start it tomorrow. In any case, the project will be finished by tomorrow.

[TheParser]

Hello to everyone, who reads it!!!

Please tell me, what is the difference between 'tomorrow' and 'by tomorrow'.

e.g. " I'll do it tomorrow "

and " I'll do it by tomorrow "

thnx

NOT A TEACHER


(1) I will call you tomorrow. = Today is Monday. Expect a call from me on Tuesday.

I will not be calling you today. So don't wait by the telephone. Go out and have fun!

(2) I will call you by tomorrow. = Today is Monday. I am very busy. I may call you

today if I have time. If I do not, I definitely will call you tomorrow. So you can expect

a call from me today or tomorrow. You should wait by your phone today and tomorrow.

Don't leave home.

[sumon.]

NOT A TEACHER

I will not be calling you today. So don't wait by the telephone. Go out and have fun!

.

Hi TheParse
Can you describe why future continuous tense has been used but why not future tense ?
Such as, I will not call you today.

[Heidi]

I'll do it by tomorrow.

-Not a teacher-

I'll do it by tomorrow. -- I'll do it any time before tomorrow.

Hope it helps!

[5jj]

I'll do it by tomorrow. -- I'll do it any time before tomorrow

NO. I'll do it before the end of tomorrow. See post #3

[TheParser]

[QUOTE=sumon.;829634]

Can you describe why future continuous tense has been used but why not future tense ?

NOT A TEACHER


(1) No, I cannot. I just wrote it that way because it was the feeling that I wanted to express.

(2) I shall try to find an explanation in my books, but I am hoping (I hope?) that one of the teachers will answer your excellent question for me.

Thanks again for the excellent -- and difficult -- question! Now you see why I always warn learners that I am NOT a teacher!

[TheParser]

[QUOTE=sumon.;829634]
Hi TheParse
Can you describe why future continuous tense has been used but why not future tense ?
Such as, I will not call you today.



NOT A TEACHER


(1) I have checked my books, and I have some information to share with you.

I do NOT claim that my ideas are correct.

(2) (a) I will not call you today.

(b) I will not be calling you today.

(3) Here are some observations:

(a) Probably both would be "correct."

(b) 2a sounds too strong because of the word "will." It sounds like a promise. In fact, I think that it sounds almost like: I refuse to call you today.

(c) As one expert said, the future progressive is "softer." It only refers to something in the future. It is not a promise. It is just a statement about the future.

(d) Another expert uses the term "matter of course." That is, something that happens naturally and regularly. For example, at 8 p.m. every night, I will be sleeping. (I am an old man who goes to bed early. That's why I am typing this at 4 a.m.!)

(e) So 2b is something like a matter of course. I am simply (only) telling you about the future. Just as I will be sleeping at 8 p.m., I will not be calling you today.

(f) Two experts point out that the future progressive is more polite.

(i) Let's say that someone borrows $100 from you:

(ia) When will you pay back the money?
(ib) When will you be paying back the money?

(ia) is rather rude. It sounds like: Hey! When am I getting my money, dude!
(ib) is more tactful. That is, it refers to a "matter of course." (I know that you always pay back any money that you borrow, so I am just politely asking when I can expect the $100.)

My two main sources:

L.G. Alexander, Longman English Grammar (1988), p. 180.

Randolph Quirk and others, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985), pp. 216 - 217.

[sumon.]

HiTheParser
Thanks a lot.
Thanks for the information given .
I really like your explanation ...

[Heidi]

NO. I'll do it before the end of tomorrow. See post #3

I appreciate your correctness. It helps. Thank you very much!