to go from kid in school to fully fledged scientist

[Alexey86]

Hello! In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVQ3yH-Zusg (0.39 – 1.10) the speaker says, "How you go, though, from kid in school to fully fledged scientist is not exactly clear to many people because unless you have a scientist in your family or in your friendship group, you’re not really gonna know how that happens. And there’ll be many people out that are probably curious about how you go about becoming a scientist mainly because they want to walk that path themselves. So, I figured today I’d sit down and tell you my path from kid at school learning all they could to working as an astrophysicist."


Why didn't she use "a" before "kid in/at school" and "fully fledged scientist"? Maybe these function as role names? Or, maybe it has to do with the "from...to..." construction?

I also have some other questions:

Why does she use a future+simple tense combination instead of a future+future one in, “And there’ll be many people out that are probably curious about...”? Maybe I misheard this part.

Does “I figured” in the last sentence mean “I decided”?

 

[probus]

I agree with your speculation. In this passage "kid at school" is a role name like doctor or soldier. I'd probably use the indefinite article myself, but it is optional.

Figure here is equivalent to reckon or calculate.

 

[Alexey86]

Figure here is equivalent to reckon or calculate.

In this case, the whole sentence makes no sense to me.

 

[jutfrank]

Why didn't she use "a" before "kid in/at school" and "fully fledged scientist"? Maybe these function as role names?

Right.

Why does she use a future+simple tense combination instead of a future+future one in, “And there’ll be many people out that are probably curious about...”?

The use of will in the 'existential there be' is to make a prediction about the present situation. There's no reason to repeat it in the following relative clause.

Does “I figured” in the last sentence mean “I decided”?

Yes.

 

[Alexey86]

Right.The use of will in the 'existential there be' is to make a prediction about the present situation. There's no reason to repeat it in the following relative clause.

What about past events and predictions about the future? For example:

a) "Tomorrow, there will be many people out that are probably curious about how you go about becoming a scientist...”

b) "There were many people out that were probably curious about how you go (or went?) about becoming a scientist...”

Are these correct?

Or, maybe it has to do with the "from...to..." construction?

I mean there are expressions with this construction, such as "from morning to evening" or "from start to finish," that also have no articles. It seems "from...to..." makes any noun bare no matter whether it functions as a role name or not. Or, maybe it just turns any noun into a role name.

 

[jutfrank]

What about past events and predictions about the future? For example:

a) "Tomorrow, there will be many people there that are curious about how you go about becoming a scientist...”

I've taken the liberty of amending your sentence a little. I'm not sure what you meant by out.

It's clear the prediction here is of the future, because of Tomorrow.

If you actually meant to write out there instead of there, and if you omitted the time expression Tomorrow, like this ...:

There will be many people out there that are curious about how you go about becoming a scientist.

... then the sentence would likely be understood as a prediction of the present, not the future.

b) "There were many people there that were curious about how you go about becoming a scientist...”

This is obviously not a prediction at all.

In both of the sentences above, you could also use the infinitive how to go instead of the finite how you go or how one goes.

So to summarise: If you want to talk about the past, you need to put both be verbs in the past tense. The verb go does not need to be in the past tense because it does not relate to past time but rather to a kind of 'infinite' or 'timeless' time. The use of will in the there be phrase is to make a prediction. Whether the prediction is of the present or future is understood by context only (including time expressions). If the prediction is of the past, you can use a past infinitive form of there be (there will have been) and put the second be verb in the past tense.

Is that clear?

I mean there are expressions with this construction, such as "from morning to evening" or "from start to finish," that also have no articles.

Right.

It seems "from...to..." makes any noun bare no matter whether it functions as a role name or not.

No, not any noun, but yes it's very common to use a zero article in from ... to phrases. It's hard to say anything more useful than that right now because it depends partly on the phrase in question (how 'fixed' the phrase is), and partly on whether it's necessary to use an article, given the meaning of the utterance as a whole. If you want to explore this in more depth, I think we need to look at some specific examples.

Or, maybe it just turns any noun into a role name.

No, don't think of it like that.

This post just took me a long time to write because we're dealing here with two unrelated issues. If you have further questions about both, I suggest opening a new thread.

 

[Alexey86]

I'm not sure what you meant by out.

I missed "there" after "out".

The verb go does not need to be in the past tense because it does not relate to past time but rather to a kind of 'infinite' or 'timeless' time.

This is clear, thank you!

If the prediction is of the past, you can use a past infinitive form of there be (will have been) and put the second be verb in the past tense.

What do you mean by "the prediction is of the past"? Why should we use the future perfect in this case instead of "would be"?

If you have further questions about both, I suggest opening a new thread.

I agree it's for another thread.

 

[emsr2d2]

Figure here is equivalent to reckon or calculate.

In this case, the whole sentence makes no sense to me.

Did you notice that three words in probus' post were in italics? That made them stand out from the rest of the sentence. It means "The word "figure" here is equivalent to the words "reckon" or "calculate"".

 

[Alexey86]

It means "The word "figure" here is equivalent to the words "reckon" or "calculate"".

Does it mean that "figure" can be substituted by these words? If it does, I don't understand the meaning of "So, I reckoned/calculated today I’d sit down and tell you my path from kid at school learning all they could to working as an astrophysicist."

 

[probus]

When we figure, reckon or calculate we weigh the pros and cons of something and come to a decision. The Youtuber has decided it is worth making the eftort to tell her autobiographical story.

 

[Tarheel]

That's what he/she decided to do.

 

[Alexey86]

When we figure, reckon or calculate we weigh the pros and cons of something and come to a decision.

It's clear now, thank you.

 

[jutfrank]

I missed "there" after "out".

I thought so. You should note, however, that out there doesn't make a whole lot of sense in your second example about a past event. How does the speaker know about people 'out there'? This is precisely why it reads more like a prediction than a statement of fact.

What do you mean by "the prediction is of the past"? Why should we use the future perfect in this case instead of "would be"?

To put it simply, that's how we make predictions—with will, not would. The past time meaning comes from the past form of the following infinitive, not from the past tense of the modal. Changing the tense of the modal has an entirely different effect.

 

[Alexey86]

If the prediction is of the past, you can use a past infinitive form of there be (there will have been) and put the second be verb in the past tense.

To put it simply, that's how we make predictions—with will, not would. The past time meaning comes from the past form of the following infinitive, not from the past tense of the modal.

How can your reasoning be applied to "And there’ll be many people out there that are probably curious about how you go about becoming a scientist"? I mean, how should it be reformulated so that it is a prediction of the past and includes "will have been"?

 

[jutfrank]

As I said in post #6—like this:

And there will have been many people out there who were curious ...

Have I understood your question correctly?

 

[Alexey86]

Have I understood your question correctly?

Yes, but the future perfect is confusing for me. I thought a prediction of the past in this case would be like "I expected there would be many people there who were curious..." or "I expected there would have been many people there by the evening..." Do you mean the epistemic meaning of "will" (https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/336490/future-perfect-will-for-past-events) in your reformulation?

 

[jutfrank]

I thought a prediction of the past in this case would be like "I expected there would be many people there who were curious..." or "I expected there would have been many people there by the evening..."

Neither of those sentences is a prediction.

Do you mean the epistemic meaning of "will" (https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/336490/future-perfect-will-for-past-events) in your reformulation?

Yes, exactly. All predictive uses of will are epistemic.

 

[Alexey86]

Neither of those sentences is a prediction.

If I change "expected" to "predicted", will it be a prediction of the past?

Yes, exactly. All predictive uses of will are epistemic.

I still don't understand in what sense "And there will have been many people out there who were curious ..." is a prediction of the past. If I get this right, the epistemic "will" means "I presume or conclude that X is true or actually happened."

 

[GoesStation]

If I change "expected" to "predicted", will it be a prediction of the past?

No. The verb is in the past simple. That means that both the expectation and the prediction happened in the past. At some point in the past, you either expected or predicted something.

 

[GoesStation]

No. The verb is in the past simple. That means that both the expectation and the prediction happened in the past. At some point in the past, you either expected or predicted something.

Change this to will have expected or predicted and you shift the time frame. Now you're saying that at some point in the past, an expectation or prediction will happen in a time that is in the future with respect to that time.