[Grammar] There's the phone. That won't be Tony.

[englishhobby]

Is it right to express negative certainty about a present situation like that: There's the phone. That won't be Tony. (=That can't be Tony or That isn't Tony, I'm sure.)

 

[emsr2d2]

Well, they're grammatically correct but I can't really imagine why you would need to state that you know a particular person isn't on the other end of the phone. Some people try to predict who's calling by saying "That'll be Tony" or "I bet that's Tony" but I can't see the point of saying who it's not.

 

[jutfrank]

It seems fine to me to make a prediction such as this.

 

[Raymott]

Could you give a natural context for it?

 

[Tdol]

This sounds natural to me:

Ring ring

That won't be Toby.

 

[Raymott]

So, when my phone rings next, and I say "That won't be Tdol or jutfrank", that would be completely natural?
I don't think that's the type of natural context I was asking for.

 

[jutfrank]

So, when my phone rings next, and I say "That won't be Tdol or jutfrank", that would be completely natural?
I don't think that's the type of natural context I was asking for.

Of course there could be a natural context for this. Maybe two people had just been talking about Tony in some sense. Or maybe you so desperately want Tony to ring that you're trying to avoid the disappointment of it not being Tony. I agree these are not very likely, though.

Maybe englishhobby could explain the context she/he had in mind. I assume there must have been one for the question to be asked.

 

[Tdol]

So, when my phone rings next, and I say "That won't be Tdol or jutfrank", that would be completely natural?
I don't think that's the type of natural context I was asking for.

You would, admittedly, need a bit of extra context, where the other speaker would know that it would not be the person you were expecting it to be.

 

[englishhobby]

Sorry for making everyone confused. I was just making a grammar table of modals for my students and on one of the websites I was using (I'm not sure which one now) I found this information: will as a modal verb can express "negative certainty", and no example was given. I know this popular example with "positive certainty" about who's calling or knocking ("That will be Tony"), but I couldn't come up with a negative one with will+not. That's why I could think of nothing smarter than just to change "positive certainty" to "negative" hoping that you would just confirm.

 

[englishhobby]

You would, admittedly, need a bit of extra context, where the other speaker would know that it would not be the person you were expecting it to be.

Perhaps, at a birthday party when the guests are arriving? "That won't be Tony. I've just talked to him on the phone, he's an hour's ride away."

 

[englishhobby]

So, it's pretty easy to come up with a context for "It can't be Tony" (I saw a man in the street that looked like Tony. I know it can't be Tony because he's abroad at the moment), but it's hard to think of the context for "It won't be Tony". Am I right? If yes, why so? Don't these sentences mean the same?

 

[Raymott]

No, it's not at all difficult to find a context for "That won't be Tony". But it's much more likely to come after a suggestion that it is Tony.

A: There's the phone. That'll be Tony.
B: No, it won't be Tony. Tony said he definitely wouldn't be able to call before 9pm.

A: There's the phone. That'll be Tony.
B: No, it won't be Tony. Didn't you hear? Tony died in hospital last night.

I still say that "There's the phone. That won't be Tony" is not likely. Maybe:

A: Oh, I wish Tony would ring. I've been waiting for his call for a couple of days!
B: There's the phone now, but it won't be Tony. I'm expecting a call from Mary at 8pm., and it's just on that now. (Optional: Besides, Tony's dead, etc.)