Using 'are' in future context

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 11, 2016
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Hindi
Home Country
India
Current Location
India
I have read in a blog that quoted, "If you started working at 20 and saved $1000 every month, by the time you are 30, you will have saved a lot of money."

Why not, "If you started working at 20 and saved $1000 every month, by the time you were 30, you would save a lot of money."

I have read the same thing in a lot of reputable blogs - How to have a house by the time you are 35.

Two questions.

1. I thought we used 'are' to describe present. Why is it being used in future context?
2. Isn't the first sentence 2nd conditional? Shouldn't we have would as the 'other part' of the conditional sentence.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
2. Isn't the first sentence 2nd conditional? Shouldn't we have would as the 'other part' of the conditional sentence.

The sentence begins as a 2nd conditional type, then shifts to a 1st conditional type. I doubt that this was fully intentional. The sentence could have ended ...by the time you were 30, you would have saved...

1. I thought we used 'are' to describe present.

Not necessarily. After certain future time markers (when/as soon as/by the time, etc.) we tend to use present tense verbs.

Why is it being used in future context?

I'd say that it's not really being used to refer to future time, but rather to an imagined result of a hypothetical situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top