And, tomorrow is or will be another day?

Just, I guess, a question of one's personal take on the space-time continuum.

G

present tense, because it is a habitual occurrence,

So, tomorrow, when I am having lunch (habitual) I will be having it with my brother and is wife (occasional) though I am eating lunch tomorrow with cutlery (habitual)?

<Added>

is wife is his wife where he is my brother and, no, he is not unduly heavy

So, Gaius, are you implying that your brother is of average weight and, should carrying be required, he would not necessarily encumber you?

But when do I get the jam?

Emma

when I am having lunch (habitual) I will be having it with my brother and is wife (occasional) though I am eating lunch tomorrow with cutlery (habitual)?

Present simple tense denotes habitual action - I have lunch at one. I don't usually drink much during the week etc.

But present continuous, as in your first example with "when" suggests a future meaning here, not a present "habitual" meaning. And "I will be having" is a different tense altogether - future continuous? - and suggests something you've planned already as does "I am eating lunch tomorrow" because "tomorrow" denotes future.

Try teaching this stuff to foreign students who think that the only future tense is one with "will" in it. If only...

But when do I get the jam?

I am not sure. Neither am I sure tomorrow, though yesterday I am certain I could have told you.

I started with a perfectly straightforward existential and philosophical conundrum and am now questioning whether or not I am proficient in the only human language I am comfortable using!

Indeed, my intense future tense tension extends into tomorrow and the next day (meaning, of course, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow rather than tomorrow twice, for emphasis).




<Added>

Ps: Though, actually, it is starting to fit together - thanks, Jem.

'Yesterday is another day'

It's the 'another' which makes it continuous into now, so it needs 'is'. Though in a fully past-tense narrative, I think it would be 'was' nonetheless.

I pick up the corkscrew. What about yesterday, I ask myself as I open the wine.Yesterday is another day, I decide.

I picked up the corkscrew. What about yesterday, I asked myself as I opened the wine. Yesterday was another day, I decided.

But this would also do, if the feel of the thoughts are very much of the 'silent speech' sort, and the 'yesterday' in question is a single yesterday, now in the past...

I pick up the corkscrew. What about yesterday, I ask myself as I open the wine. Yesterday was another day, I decide.

Emma

Try teaching this stuff to foreign students who think that the only future tense is one with "will" in it.

If they've learnt English from a non-native speaker, or a book written by one, they often believe that it's supposed to be "shall" for the first person but "will" for anything other than the first person.

English is, indeed, a very confusing language for someone who is not a native speaker. Half the time, it's difficult to explain why things are said the way they are (and even harder to explain why they're spelt the way they are).

Alex

they often believe that it's supposed to be "shall" for the first person but "will" for anything other than the first person.

I was taught that, except when you want emphasis when it's the other way round. It's one of those things which is correct if you're being super-picky, but on the way out so it comes across as old-fashioned.

Both my French pen-friend (35-odd years ago) and my wife (within the last 2-3 years) were taught to use "shall" for first person, but never for anything other than first person. It's evidently a "rule" that has found its way into overseas teaching of English, and has been propagated by writers of courses who haven't spent much time listening to native English speakers. Mind you, I was taught a few things, both in French and in Russian, which turned out not to be the way people actually talk.

One has to wonder what will happen to the standards of English being learned overseas, now that we've got an immigration rule that requires a certain level of English as a pre-requisite for coming to the UK. I suspect that the standard will drop, rather than rising, if people have less chance to learn from native speakers.

Alex

were taught to use "shall" for first person, but never for anything other than first person.

Well, they were taught right, but that's not the whole story. From Oxford Everyday Grammar:

The rule of traditional grammar was [note, not 'is'] as follows: Normally use 'shall with 'I' and 'we'. Use 'will' with all other persons. Reverse this for emphasis, as in the famous example, 'I will do it and nobody shall help me.' Increasingly, however, 'will' has become common in all uses. Indeed, 'shall' is by far the least common of all the modal auxiliary verbs: for every occasion when 'shall' is used in conversation, 'will' is used fourteen times. The only common occurrence of 'shall' with 'I' and 'we' is in questions: "Shall I do it now?" "Shall I light the fire?" The alternative, "Will I do it nw?" is also possible, but in British English tends to be a regional rather than a general usage.

I think of 'Will I do it now?' as Irish English - Irish WWers, would you agree? I can only imagine someone saying "Will I light the fire?" in my grandmother's voice...

Emma

Interestingly (to some, at any rate), it is normal practice, when writing any kind of technical specification or requirements document, to use 'shall' when stating a mandatory requirement. For example:

When the customer confirms the order, an estimated date for delivery shall be calculated and displayed to the customer.

It's also common practice to use 'should', in place of 'shall', if the meaning is 'do this if at all possible', rather than 'do this under all circumstances'. Personally, I've always felt that this not a particularly clear way of showing the distinction between mandatory and nice-to-have requirements; especially when one considers that 'should' often means 'ought to', in common parlance.

Alex

That kind of 'shall' does sound very legal, doesn't it - which I imagine is where it comes from originally.

It's also common practice to use 'should', in place of 'shall', if the meaning is 'do this if at all possible', rather than 'do this under all circumstances'.

Yes, that 'should' as in 'ought to' - 'He should come, but I bet he won't' is very complicating, isn't it.

Alex, our minds are thinking as one, because I've just been in the King James Bible, for the purposes of the WIP, and found this - you'll recognise the context:

"For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean"

which is "should" as in the subjunctive of "shall", and using "shall" not "will" for emphasis.

But it absolutely can't be a conditional, as I suspect many people would now read it, since the whole point of the chapter is that Jesus knows for definite who will - or rather SHALL - betray him. It's not conditional at all.

I just see "should" here as an older form of "was going to" - so a past tense, not a conditional or a subjunctive.