[Grammar] will announce who will be going?

lycen said:

This is incorrect:
I will see how it will go

Click to expand...

lycen said:

What about this? Is it correct in such a context?

Someone will be going home.
(Later)I will announce the person who will be going home.

Click to expand...

lycen said:

I also have another query. Does the sentence below seem equivocal?

I will announce the person who is going home (now) (the person is presently going home but I'll announce it later). :tick:
I will announce the person who is going home (then; going home at the time of the announcement). (who is scheduled to go home sometime in the future)
I will announce the person who is going home (at the time of announcement). :tick:
Thank you.

Click to expand...

lycen said:

In my previous thread, an academic member Raymott told me that "We'll see how it will go" is bad English.

https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/...ense-right-after-future-tense.html#post581822

I'm innocent!
Yes, I said it was bad English, not that it was syntactically incorrect. We were discussing usage, not grammar. Native speakers will say "We'll see how it goes". If any native speaker routinely says "We'll see how it will go", then I will stand corrected and amend it to "Almost no one says that".
It sounds funny to my ears too.
To mine too. But, at least in English, you can say a lot of grammatical things that sound strange and which native speakers just don't say.


(Later)I will announce the person who will be going home.
I also have another query. Does the sentence below seem equivocal?
Your first meaning is unlikely. The second is possible.
In reality shows, the sentence is as above. The host will announce the name (after the commercial break) and the person will then leave (ten minutes after the announcement).

Click to expand...

(Later)I will announce the person who will be going home.
I also have another query. Does the sentence below seem equivocal?
Your first meaning is unlikely. The second is possible.
In reality shows, the sentence is as above. The host will announce the name (after the commercial break) and the person will then leave (ten minutes after the announcement).

Click to expand...

I will announce the person who will be going home.

Click to expand...

I will announce the person who will go home.

Click to expand...

corum said:

The second will is a future continuous tense auxiliary because it is part of a will + be + -ing construction. It can't express volition.

But I meant the "will" of certainty without futurity and not volition. As in:

Don't disturb him because he will be doing his work (right now).

Here will can be taken as a synonym for willingness.

Click to expand...

I will announce the person who will be going home.

Click to expand...

corum said:

will = the person' going home is certain in the future. It has been decided. I cannot always treat futurity and certainty separately.
Is this what you need? Sorry I have to concentrate on other things too (I am at work).

Click to expand...

lycen said:

Modal "Will" can mean the future 'will" or the non-future certainty/volitional/commanding "will". In my example:

Someone will be going home (but the decision hasn't been made).
The decision about who is going home might or might not have been made yet. I don't see how it matters to the current argument. Someone will be going home because someone has to go home according to the rules of the game/show.
It seems to me that this implies both certainty and futurity.
Certainty in the present would require "Someone is going home".

(Later)I will announce (the person) who will be going home.
This doesn't imply that there currently exists a specific person who will be going home.

I assume that the second "will" does not add another level futurity to an already future event.
I think it does, as I indicated in my previous post. If the person hasn't been chosen yet (the votes aren't yet in), there is no current specific "person who will be going home" that the host can be referring to.

Am I right to say that the second "will" merely voices a certainty of going home at the time of announcement, without expressing a future sense (i.e. the future after the time of announcement).
I don't believe so.

We can change "will be going home" to "is going home" too, can't we?
Yes, that's possible grammatically and semantically. But I don't see how it helps your argument because the present tense "is going home" can also be used to indicate futurity. When this announcement is made, there is not necessarily a confirmed "person who is going home tonight" either.

Click to expand...

lycen said:

No, "will" can be non-future (and of course expressing certainty) and it's certainly listed in grammar textbooks.

Click to expand...