shall and future tense

[blizzy]

What's the difference? Is there any difference at all?
a. Provided that there is no opposition we shall hold the meeting here.
b. Provided that there is no opposition we are going to hold the meeting here.
c. Provided that there is no opposition we will hold the meeting here.


I think this sentence is wrong, am I right?
d. Provided that there is no opposition we are going to held the meeting here.

 

[Rover_KE]

What's the difference? Is there any difference at all? There's no difference.
a. Provided that there is no opposition we shall hold the meeting here.
b. Provided that there is no opposition we are going to hold the meeting here.
c. Provided that there is no opposition we will hold the meeting here.


I think this sentence is wrong. Am I right?
d. Provided that there is no opposition we are going to held the meeting here.

You are right.

 

[GoesStation]

Sentence A is odd and stilted, but comprehensible, in American English.

 

[blizzy]

Sentence A is odd and stilted, but comprehensible, in American English.

Funny to hear such things as I got this sentence from a textbook of mine!
I have come up with sentences #2 and #3 myself.

Those things are of great importance to me. Thanks!!

 

[GoesStation]

Funny to hear such things as I got this sentence from a textbook of mine!

Many phrases common in British English sound old-fashioned to American ears, and vice versa. As long as your textbook doesn't claim to be teaching American English, it's fine.

 

[Phaedrus]

That sentence does not look/sound odd to British ears, though people younger than I (i.e., most of the population) today would write/say will or ​'ll.

Could it be, Piscean, that you yourself occasionally use shall in first-person declarative utterances about the future?

 

[teechar]

You need a comma after "opposition" in the above.