by the time

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by hela

Have you got any better examples to illustrate my point?
Look forward to your answers,
Hela

They look like perfectly good examples to me!

MrP

[Casiopea]

Hela, sans additional context,

1) By the time he arrives, we will have a meeting.
=> Agreed. It's awkward. Do you know why?

2) ............................ , we are going to have a meeting.
=> Agreed. It's awkward.

3) ............................ , we are having a meeting.
=> Agreed. It's awkward.

4) ............................ , we will be having a meeting.
=> It's works but it's marginal. Do you know why?

5) ............................ , we have had a meeting.
=> Agreed. It's awkward.

6) ............................ , we will have had a meeting.
=> It's marginal. "a meeting" doesn't connect.


7) By the time he arrived, we would have a meeting.
=> I agree.

8) ............................ , we were going to have a meeting.
=> I agree.

9) ............................ , we were having a meeting.
=> I agree.

10) .......................... , we would be having a meeting.
=> I agree.

11) .......................... , we had had a meeting.
=> I agree, with additional context; i.e., a meeting with the client.

12) .......................... , we would have had a meeting. or ?
=> Not possible. Conditional.

Hela[/quote]

[hela]

Dear Cas, (May I call you Cas ?)

4) ............................ , we will be having a meeting.
=> It's works but it's marginal. Do you know why?

Doesn't this mean that he will arrive in the middle of the meeting

6) ............................ , we will have had a meeting.
=> It's marginal. "a meeting" doesn't connect.

Should I say "we will have had the meeting about the language class curriculum" ?

But even though we cannot say:

1) By the time he arrives, we will have a meeting.
=> Agreed. It's awkward. Do you know why?

May be because when we use "by the time" we generally want to say that the action that is /was supposed to be performed can or couldn't be because it is /was too late.

Is that correct?

If I say "By the time he arrived I would be dead", would that express an unlikely situation in the future?

Kind regards,
Hela

[MrPedantic]

That's quite interesting. With a slight change, these would be my ticks:

3) By the time he arrives, we are having breakfast.
— only in a narrative, with the historic present for "vividness".

4) ............................ , we will be having breakfast.
— prediction.

5) ............................ , we have had breakfast.
— as #3.

6) ............................ , we will have had breakfast.
— prediction.

8) By the time he arrived, we were going to have breakfast.
— I'm not sure I can stomach this as it stands; but with clauses reversed, and a faint tone of reproach, it seems to work, e.g.

8a) But we were going to have breakfast by the time he arrived!
— i.e. they didn't manage to have breakfast by the time he arrived, and the speaker is quite cross with the addressee about the fact.

9) ............................ , we were having breakfast.
— one past action during another.

10) .......................... , we would be having breakfast.
— two possible meanings:

a) raising an objection to a future possibility: "No, don't tell him to get here for 9 o'clock. By the time he arrived, we would be having breakfast."

b) a recurrent action in the past.

11) .......................... , we had had breakfast.
— breakfast preceded arrival.

12) .......................... , we would have had breakfast.
— raising an objection to a future possibility: "No, don't tell him to come at 10 o'clock, if he wants to get here in time for breakfast. By the time he arrived, we would have had breakfast! Tell him to come at 9 instead."

Suddenly I feel a little hungry...

MrP

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by hela

4) By the time he arrives, we will be having a meeting.

Doesn't this mean that he will arrive in the middle of the meeting

Right. The meeting started before his arrival. Though take a look at Mr P's interpretation for 3).
[color=black]

Originally Posted by MrP

3) By the time he arrives, we are having breakfast.

— historic present

In other words - and I know see what Mr P was after - having breakfast will start before his arrival.

Originally Posted by hela

6) By the time he arrives, we will have had a meeting.

Should I say "we will have had the meeting about the language class curriculum"?

Sounds better - to me; e.g. ... we will have [already] had our/the meeting.

Originally Posted by hela

1) By the time he arrives, we will have a meeting.

Maybe because when we use "by the time" we generally want to say that the action that is /was supposed to be performed can or couldn't be because it is /was too late.

His arrival takes place during another event. The two events are connected in time much like the way the past perfect works. "will have", 1), signals a future event, one that will happen after his arrival. What we want is a verb that signals the past, like "will have had" - a verb that places the event before, or during (see Mr P's interpretations) the other event, not after.

ex: By the time he arrives, we'll be having dinner. <during>
ex: By the time he arrives, we're having dinner. <during; future>
ex: By the time he arrives, we'll have had dinner. <before>
ex: By the time he arrives, we'll have dinner. <*after, unless 'By the time' is meant to be synonymous with "When", then the events occur one after the other, not one before the other>

Originally Posted by hela

If I say "By the time he arrived, I would be dead", would that express an unlikely situation in the future?

Not "unlikely", no. More like a predication based on present evidence. For example,

Max: Did you hear the news?
Sam: Nope.
Max: Pat's just been signed on with Mercy Hospital as an ambulance driver.
Sam: What? Pat is an overly cautious driver. If I needed an ambulance, and Pat got the call, I'd be dead by the time s/he arrived.

[hela]

Thank you very much, Casiopea and MrP! Thank you for the comments and explanations!

I don't know why but I don't feel "comfortable" with MrP's sentences #3, 5 & 8. When I translate them into French (sthg I shouldn't do, I know) they sound very odd to me.

See you for more
Hela

[Casiopea]

You're most welcome, Hela. Thank you for the great questions.

Originally Posted by hela

I don't know why but I don't feel "comfortable" with MrP's sentences #3, 5 & 8. When I translate them into French (sthg I shouldn't do, I know) they sound very odd to me.

Oh, I agree ... well, I can see your point, but if you take into consideration that language is contextual, that sentences like the one's Mr P expands on require additional context, you'll gain a better understanding of why it is that speakers do use language in unpredicatable or unexpected ways. Psst. Look at where the sentence is being used.