Are you going to have finished your homework by ten o'clock?

[andresalles2022]

How many auxiliary verbs are there in the following sentence?

"Are you going to have finished your homework by ten o'clock?"

I believe the auxiliary verbs are:

1. The verb to be (Are);

2. going to

3. have.

So, in my opinion, there are three auxiliary verbs in this sentence. Am I correct? Is this possible?

 

[Tarheel]

It's possible. Now I have a question. Is this a sentence somebody actually said?

 

[andresalles2022]

It's possible. Now I have a question. Is this a sentence somebody actually said?

No. I actually got this sentence from the internet. Is it awkward in any way?

 

[emsr2d2]

No. I actually got this sentence from the internet. Is it awkward in any way?

It's not awkward at all. However, "from the internet" isn't a complete source. Please give us a link to the relevant site.

 

[Phaedrus]

Is it awkward in any way?

I find it a bit awkward and should prefer:

Are you going to have your homework finished by ten o'clock?

It's basically like saying "Do you intend to have your homework finished by ten o'clock?"

The following is unnatural: "Do you intend to have finished your homework by ten o'clock?"

 

[andresalles2022]

I find it a bit awkward and should prefer:

Are you going to have your homework finished by ten o'clock?

It's basically like saying "Do you intend to have your homework finished by ten o'clock?"

The following is unnatural: "Do you intend to have finished your homework by ten o'clock?"

I see. My understanding of the Future Perfect is that the main verb (finished) must be placed right next to the auxiliary verb (have). For example, as in this similar sentence: She´s going to have cleaned the house by 5 o´clock. Is it also possible to say: She´s going to have the house cleaned by 5 o´clock ?

 

[andresalles2022]

It's not awkward at all. However, "from the internet" isn't a complete source. Please give us a link to the relevant site.

I don´t remember from which site anymore.

 

[andresalles2022]

I find it a bit awkward and should prefer:

Are you going to have your homework finished by ten o'clock?

It's basically like saying "Do you intend to have your homework finished by ten o'clock?"

The following is unnatural: "Do you intend to have finished your homework by ten o'clock?"

But gramatically speaking the two sentences are interchangeable? Although the second may sound more natural?

 

[Phaedrus]

I see. My understanding of the Future Perfect is that the main verb (finished) must be placed right next to the auxiliary verb (have). For example, as in this similary sentence: She´s going to have cleaned the house by 5 o´clock. Is it also possible to say: She´s going to have the house cleaned by 5 o´clock ?

Both sentences work. They are slightly different constructions, and their meanings differ a little, too.

Normally, the future perfect is formed with "will have," not "be going to have." The latter would be used in special cases which go nicely with the other construction.

Notice that it is MUCH less natural to ask "By what time is she going to have cleaned the house?" compared to "By what time will she have cleaned the house?"

 

[emsr2d2]

This BrE speaker would use the original question, rather than Phaedrus' suggestion (maybe it's a BrE v AmE difference).

Are you going to have finished your homework by ...?
Will you have finished your homework by ...?

 

[andresalles2022]

Both sentences work. They are slightly different constructions, and their meanings differ a little, too.

Normally, the future perfect is formed with "will have," not "be going to have." The latter would be used in special cases which go nicely with the other construction.

Notice that it is MUCH less natural to ask "By what time is she going to have cleaned the house?" compared to "By what time will she have cleaned the house?"

The situation is: I´m preparing a video lecture in which I have to explain the Meaning the Form and the Usage of the Future Perfect, and I cannot exclude the form "GOING TO HAVE" in my lecture. But your explanation that the form "WILL" sounds more natural is really valuable. I will probably include a note about this at the closing of my lecture.

 

[Phaedrus]

The situation is: I´m preparing a video lecture in which I have to explain the Meaning the Form and the Usage of the Future Perfect, and I cannot exclude the form "GOING TO HAVE" in my lecture. But your explanation that the form "WILL" sounds more natural is really valuable. I will probably include a note about this at the closing of my lecture.

The contrast for me is even stronger in the future perfect progressive.

By then, we will/shall have been working for hours.
? By then, we are going to have been working for hours.

Or we could look at the future perfect progressive passive:

By then, he will have been being interviewed for over half an hour.
?? By then, he is going to have been being interviewed for over half an hour.

 

[Tarheel]

The situation is: I´m preparing a video lecture in which I am going to explain the Meaning the Form and the Usage of the Future Perfect, and I cannot exclude the form "GOING TO HAVE" in my lecture. But your explanation that the form "WILL" sounds more natural is really valuable. I will probably include a note about this at the closing of my lecture.

I don't understand the capitalization there. Also, I would probably say: "Are you going to be finished (with your homework) by ten (o'clock)?

(Maybe it's a BrE/AmE thing. I'm not sure.)

 

[5jj]

She´s going to have cleaned the house by 5 o´clock.
She will have cleaned the house by 5 o'clock.

Those two are perfect constructions.

She´s going to have the house cleaned by 5 o´clock.
She will to have the house cleaned by 5 o´clock.

Those two are not.

 

[Phaedrus]

She´s going to have cleaned the house by 5 o´clock.
She will have cleaned the house by 5 o'clock.

Those two are perfect constructions.

She´s going to have the house cleaned by 5 o´clock.
She will to have the house cleaned by 5 o´clock.

Those two are not.

But surely you've read about how the second type of construction is diachronically connected to the perfect type: I have written the letter <--> I have the letter written.

 

[5jj]

Yes.

That does not make it perfect in modern English.

 

[Ostap]

The situation is: I´m preparing a video lecture in which I have to explain the Meaning the Form and the Usage of the Future Perfect, and I cannot exclude the form "GOING TO HAVE" in my lecture. But your explanation that the form "WILL" sounds more natural is really valuable. I will probably include a note about this at the closing of my lecture.

It's worth distinguishing between the two different constructs: the future perfect and the perfect infinitive (to have + past participle). The latter is tenseless.

 

[Phaedrus]

Yes.

That does not make it perfect in modern English.

Do you have any reason to believe that it is less than perfect in modern English—at least when the focus is on the state that results from a given action and the predicate has the ontological-aspect category of "accomplishment"? Are the British prejudiced against the construction for some reason? The following excerpt from the late F. Th. Visser's four-volume diachronic masterpiece may be of interest:

"Originally have in colligation with a past participle was a notional verb denoting possession, while the past participle was a complement or attribute to the object and had a good deal of adjective force . . . : I have my work done = I possess or have my work in a done or finished condition. From this state as a result antecedent action was inferred, so that the colligation came to be used to denote completed action . . . . In Present-Day English the word-order in independent syntactical units usually clearly indicates whether state or action is meant, so that I have my work done implies the former, and I have my done my work the latter. For a long time after the Old English period, however, this difference in word-order was without this discriminative force, and the interpretation of constructions with mid-position of the object exclusively depended on sitation and/or context. In the sixteenth century there are numerous instances of patterns with mid-position of the object that would now require the object in post-position. St. Thomas More, for one, has . . .:

. . . he had no child of his owne body begotten.

"After about Shakespeare's time the pattern with post-position of the object gradually became the normal one. One of the causes of the declining of the pattern with mid-position of the object may have been the fact that it became increasingly liable to be confused with a pattern with the same surface structure but an entirely different deep structure, viz. the indirect or interrupted consecution of the type he had it done - he got it done (by someone else), in which the subject does not denote the person that performed the action expressed by the past participle.

"Yet in spite of this possibility of confusion it remained common in various dialects, in Anglo-Irish and America. In standard English it is found with increasing frequency, especially in popular diction. It seems that in such constructions as I have him beaten, the end-position of the past participle focusses the listener's attention not on the action itself, but rather on the state or condition resulting from the action, and consequently expresses a kind of emotional interest taken in the result reached. More often than not this emotional interest is tinged with a feeling of possessorship (he had him trapped, I have her cornered, etc.), the same kind as that which is implied in the statement 'We have two fine oak-trees in front of our house' as compared with the neutral 'There are two fine oak-trees in front of our house.'

". . . 1922 James Joyce, Ulysses . . . By God, she had Bloom cornered . . . 1928 R. Chandler, Farewell Myly . . . Maybe I'm wrong. I had you figured for a guy that could be soled a nice idea . . . 1945 J. Hersey, A Bell for Adano . . . 'You sure have these wops charmed' . . . 1947 E. Linsky, The Kiss of Death . . . Then when we have that worked out, we can probably knoock out most and concentrate on what remains. . . . 1961 A. Christie, A Pale Horse . . . No it's not what it used to be, having a chemist's establishment. However, I've a good sum put by. . . . 1966 J. H. Ford, The Liberation of Lord Byron Jones . . . Now what has me bothered is why Emma would want to do anything that would expose the white man."

-- F. Th. Visser, An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Volume III, pp. 2189-2191 (Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1973)

 

[5jj]

Do you have any reason to believe that it is less than perfect in modern English—at least when the focus is on the state that results from a given action and the predicate has the ontological-aspect category of "accomplishment"?

Yes.

Are the British prejudiced against the construction for some reason?

No. What gives you that idea?

I simply don't consider it a perfect construction in modern English.

 

[Phaedrus]

Yes.

I doubt that it is a reason worthy of the name, since you have not deigned to produce it.

No. What gives you that idea?

Ems's post #10 and the many British likes it received, along with your post #16, despite the fact that it didn't receive any likes, British or American.

I simply don't consider it a perfect construction in modern English.

It's perfectly fine. Just read and listen to more English. You're surrounded by the construction. It expresses nuances of meaning that the perfect construction does not.

You could also study the magisterial Visser quotation I painstakingly brought to your attention in Post #18.