sentences about Paris

[milan2003_07]

Hello,

1) "I am going to buy a ticket to Paris"

What Tense is it? Is it Future Simple or Future Continuous?

2) It is hard to get to Paris

Where is the predicate here? Is it "is" or "is hard to get"?

Thanks

 

[milan2003_07]

Please help me with my sentences

 

[Verona_82]

Hi!

1) "I am going to buy a ticket to Paris"

What Tense is it? Is it Future Simple or Future Continuous?

I'm afraid, neither of them. The structure is a present tense (the present progressive of go)

 

[milan2003_07]

Hi!

I'm afraid, neither of them. The structure is a present tense (the present progressive of go)

So it's Present Progressive?

What about my second question?

Thanks

 

[Verona_82]

Frankly speaking, I don't know. I'd suggest that the predicate in your sentence is "is hard to get to Paris". A predicate contains a verb + its objects and complements (that's what I was taught).
A qualified and competent person will give you the correct answer.

 

[milan2003_07]

Frankly speaking, I don't know. I'd suggest that the predicate in your sentence is "is hard to get to Paris". A predicate contains a verb + its objects and complements (that's what I was taught).
A qualified and competent person will give you the correct answer.

OK. Do you confirm that the Tense is Present Progressive?

 

[5jj]

"I am going to buy a ticket to Paris". What Tense is it? Is it Future Simple or Future Continuous?

This form is usually known as the [BE]+going+to future.Technically it is formed from the present progressive (or continuous) of GO, but it is not helpful to refer to it in this way, as the present progressive (or continuous) of most verbs can be used to refer to the future, with a slightly different sense.

I am going to buy a ticket tomorrow. - [BE]+going+to future.
I am buying a ticket tomorrow. - present progressive (or continuous) used for a future situation.

I will buy a ticket tomorrow. - Some writers and teachers still refer to this as the future simple.
I will be buying a ticket tomorrow. - Some writer and teachers still refer to this as the future progressive (or continuous).

Your second question would be better in a new thread.

 

[Verona_82]

Yes, 'technically' is the operative word. I should have used it

 

[milan2003_07]

This form is usually known as the [BE]+going+to future.Technically it is formed from the present progressive (or continuous) of GO, but it is not helpful to refer to it in this way, as the present progressive (or continuous) of most verbs can be used to refer to the future, with a slightly different sense.

I am going to buy a ticket tomorrow. - [BE]+going+to future.
I am buying a ticket tomorrow. - present progressive (or continuous) used for a future situation.

I will buy a ticket tomorrow. - Some writers and teachers still refer to this as the future simple.
I will be buying a ticket tomorrow. - Some writer and teachers still refer to this as the future progressive (or continuous).

Your second question would be better in a new thread.

So in my sentence the grammar form is "be + going + to + future"? I'm asking not because I don't know what the construction means, but because I need an accurate name of this grammar pattern. Like "Present Simple" or "Future Perfect", for example. I have doubts about the name of the construction in my sentence. You say it's NOT Present Continuous. So it is "be + going + to + future"? Right?

 

[Verona_82]

Michael Swan (p.188) writes:
"This structure is really a present tense (the present progressive of go)".

Technically.
Of course, now we refer to it as a fixed grammar pattern.
But isn't it how it originated?

I agree that grammar books and reality are sometimes two different things I'd stick to a teacher's opinion.

 

[5jj]

You say it's NOT Present Continuous. So it is "be + going + to + future"? Right?

I did not say it is not present continuous. I said that it is not helpful to refer to it in this way.

Swan does indeed say that it is 'really' a present progressive form. Having said that, he refers to it as 'be going + infinitive' or 'the going-to structure'. Quirk et al treat be going to as a semi-auxiliary.

Verona suggests that grammar books and reality are sometimes two different things. I don't think this is the case here. I suspect that most grammarians would agree that it is present continuous/progressive in form. However, as the structure is used effectively as a whole as a method of expressing futurity, contrasting with other ways of expressing futurity (including the present continuous of most verbs), it seems unhelpful to insist that it is a present progressive.

Although some writers say that it is not possible, many people use 'going to go'; there are 9538 citations in the Corpus of Contemporary American.

Thus we can have:

1. I go to France next week.
2. I am going to France next week.
3. I am going to go to France next week.
4. I will go to France next week.
5. I'll be going to France next week.

It is useful to label #2 as 'the present progressive (of go) to express futurity', and #3 as the [BE]+going+to' future (of go).

 

[milan2003_07]

Thanks!!! Excellent!!! :-D:-D:-D

 

[5jj]

This thread is not the place to go into detail about the ways of expressing futurity. If you have a high boredom threshold, you might care to try my thoughts on the subject at: http://www.gramorak.com/Articles/Future.pdf