speaking of the very near future

[GoldfishLord]

I'd like to know why the present continuous is used in "be returning".

This isn't present continuous. The full verb phrase is "will be returning', which is future continuous. One use of the future continuous is for parallel actions happening at the same time in the future. In this case, Duran will be returning to the command ship while the Captain is doing something else at the same time.

I'd also like to know what the difference between "I'll be returning to the command ship presently" and "I'll return to the command ship presently" and "I'm returning to the command ship presently" is.

The first is future continuous, explained above. The second is simple future. It has several uses, including promises, predictions, voluntary actions, and spontaneous decisions (the prediction sense wouldn't apply here.) Your last example is present continuous, and could either be an action in progress or speaking of the very near future (depending upon which sense of 'presently' is used).

All that being said, as Goes mentioned, there's often not much difference.

Is "speaking" a gerund?

 

[Piscean]

As I wrote in another thread recently:

Like many grammarians, I do not find the term gerund helpful.


Aarts, Bas (2011), Oxford Modern English Grammar, does not differentiate between gerunds and participles. He refers to both as -ing participles.

Carter, Ronald and Michael McCarty (2006) Cambridge Grammar of English, do not differentiate between gerunds and participles. They refer to both as -ing forms.

Chalker, Sylvia (1984), Current English Grammar, does not differentiate between gerunds and participles in the body of the book. She refers to both as -ing forms. She writes: A distinction is often made between gerunds ('verbal nouns') and participles, which are more like verbs or adjectives. In fact the -ing form cannot be quite so neatly divided.

Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey Pullum (2002), The Cambridge Grammar of the English language, write: [...] we reject an analysis that has gerund and participle as different forms syncretised throughout the class of verb We have therefore just one inflectional form of the verb marked by the -ing suffix; we label it with the compound term 'gerund-participle' .

Quirk, Randolph et al (1985), A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, note a complex gradience of fourteen different uses of -ing- forms from nouns (deverbal count nouns , abstract-non count verbal nouns), through the traditionally named gerund to the traditionally-named (present) participle. They write of the forms that are not clearly nouns, [...] we do not find it useful to distinguish a gerund from a participle, but terminologically class all these forms as PARTICIPLES.

 

[GoldfishLord]

Is "speaking" in the contiunous tense?

 

[Piscean]

Your last example is present continuous, and could either be an action in progress or speaking of the very near future (depending upon which sense of 'presently' is used).

If the words I have inderined were not there, I'd say yes - your last example ... could be speaking of the very near future ... . It could be *!0 a progressive form, modal aspect.

However, with the missing words, this could be interpreted as ... could either be an action in progress or (the act of) speaking of the very near future ... , in which case in is not progressive.

Incidentally, few grammarians think of aspects as tenses, though they often show tense.

 

[GoldfishLord]

As I wrote in another thread recently:

Like many grammarians, I do not find the term gerund helpful.


Aarts, Bas (2011), Oxford Modern English Grammar, does not differentiate between gerunds and participles. He refers to both as -ing participles.

Carter, Ronald and Michael McCarty (2006) Cambridge Grammar of English, do not differentiate between gerunds and participles. They refer to both as -ing forms.

Chalker, Sylvia (1984), Current English Grammar, does not differentiate between gerunds and participles in the body of the book. She refers to both as -ing forms. She writes: A distinction is often made between gerunds ('verbal nouns') and participles, which are more like verbs or adjectives. In fact the -ing form cannot be quite so neatly divided.

Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey Pullum (2002), The Cambridge Grammar of the English language, write: [...] we reject an analysis that has gerund and participle as different forms syncretised throughout the class of verb We have therefore just one inflectional form of the verb marked by the -ing suffix; we label it with the compound term 'gerund-participle' .

Quirk, Randolph et al (1985), A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, note a complex gradience of fourteen different uses of -ing- forms from nouns (deverbal count nouns , abstract-non count verbal nouns), through the traditionally named gerund to the traditionally-named (present) participle. They write of the forms that are not clearly nouns, [...] we do not find it useful to distinguish a gerund from a participle, but terminologically class all these forms as PARTICIPLES.

What are the meanings of "syncretised throughout the class of verb" and "note a complex gradience"?

 

[Piscean]

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/syncretise

gradience - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

Does that help?

 

[GoldfishLord]

I'm still having trouble understanding those parts.
Would you rephrase them?

 

[jutfrank]

I'm pretty sure this is what Skrej meant:

... could be ... speaking of the very near future.

You can see that speaking is a verb in the progressive form, not a gerund.

 

[güey]

could either be an action in progress or (the act of) speaking of the very near future ... , in which case in is not progressive.

And in which case it would be a gerund, wouldn't it?

Like many grammarians, I do not find the term gerund helpful.

I find the term very helpful and practical. A gerund clearly functions differently from other ing-forms in a sentence, that can be nouns, participles (part of speech), part of a compound verb, or adjectives. I've never understood why some grammarians reject the term.

 

[jutfrank]

And in which case it would be a gerund, wouldn't it?

Yes.

I find the term very helpful and practical.

Me too.

I've never understood why some grammarians reject the term.

They're not EFL teachers. They don't need to make a distinction.