Discussion:
"England IS GOING TO be sorry..."
Add Reply
John Doe
2018-07-10 01:22:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"?
There are many such three word expressions like "is going to" in which
the word "will" should be used for efficiency IMO. Any reason not to do
so?

Thanks.
--
Yes, the subject line is intentionally sparky.
Richard Yates
2018-07-10 04:29:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 01:22:03 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
Post by John Doe
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"?
There are many such three word expressions like "is going to" in which
the word "will" should be used for efficiency IMO. Any reason not to do
so?
Thanks.
Rhythm
Emphasis
Alliteration
Habit
Preference
Pay-by-the-word

BTW, why did you use "in which" in your post when "where" would have
saved you two letters and a space?
David Kleinecke
2018-07-10 05:17:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Yates
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 01:22:03 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
Post by John Doe
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"?
There are many such three word expressions like "is going to" in which
the word "will" should be used for efficiency IMO. Any reason not to do
so?
Thanks.
Rhythm
Emphasis
Alliteration
Habit
Preference
Pay-by-the-word
BTW, why did you use "in which" in your post when "where" would have
saved you two letters and a space?
If we are going to get artistic "sorry" is a sorry excuse
for an emotive word.

England will mourn.
Pray for Albion.
...
Bob Martin
2018-07-10 06:17:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Doe
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"?
There are many such three word expressions like "is going to" in which
the word "will" should be used for efficiency IMO. Any reason not to do
so?
Nobody says "is going to", usually it's "'s gonna".
Peter Young
2018-07-10 08:04:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Martin
Post by John Doe
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"?
There are many such three word expressions like "is going to" in which
the word "will" should be used for efficiency IMO. Any reason not to do
so?
Nobody says "is going to", usually it's "'s gonna".
Nobody Over There maybe, but not Over Here.

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Pt)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Janet
2018-07-10 18:33:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@excite.com
says...
Post by Bob Martin
Post by John Doe
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"?
There are many such three word expressions like "is going to" in which
the word "will" should be used for efficiency IMO. Any reason not to do
so?
Nobody says "is going to",
Many Br E speakers are going to disagree with that.
Post by Bob Martin
usually it's "'s gonna".
That may be true in USA.

Janet
Ken Blake
2018-07-10 19:04:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Bob Martin
Post by John Doe
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"?
There are many such three word expressions like "is going to" in which
the word "will" should be used for efficiency IMO. Any reason not to do
so?
Nobody says "is going to",
Many Br E speakers are going to disagree with that.
And many AmE speakers, such as me.
Post by Janet
Post by Bob Martin
usually it's "'s gonna".
That may be true in USA.
Usually? Yes. Always? No.
Lewis
2018-07-11 10:26:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Bob Martin
Post by John Doe
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"?
There are many such three word expressions like "is going to" in which
the word "will" should be used for efficiency IMO. Any reason not to do
so?
Nobody says "is going to",
Many Br E speakers are going to disagree with that.
As well as many AmE speakers.

"is going to" is perfectly normal.
Post by Janet
Post by Bob Martin
usually it's "'s gonna".
That may be true in USA.
It is certainly SAID in the USA, especially by children. I don't know
that it's usual.
--
'Oh, I never play to win.' She smiled. 'But I do play not to lose.'
John Doe
2018-07-11 12:58:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lewis
Post by Janet
Post by Bob Martin
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"? There are many such
three word expressions like "is going to" in which the word
"will" should be used for efficiency IMO. Any reason not to do
so?
Nobody says "is going to",
Many Br E speakers are going to disagree with that.
As well as many AmE speakers.
"is going to" is perfectly normal.
Post by Janet
Post by Bob Martin
usually it's "'s gonna".
Right.
Post by Lewis
Post by Janet
That may be true in USA.
It is certainly SAID in the USA, especially by children. I don't
know that it's usual.
Using Google "will" is used many times more than "is going to" in
common sentences.

Using my example doesn't work because of the source I took it from.
You have to include (-Trump) to produce accurate results. But there
are jillions of other such expressions...

"John is going to be sorry" (for slighting the gurus).
No results found for "John is going to be sorry".

"John will be sorry"
About 12,800 results.

"John's gonna be sorry"
About 205 results.

A phrase like "is going to" sounds like a weird outgrowth of some
other expressions like "I am going to the park".

The provided answers include too much reactionary pushback and too
little sense. There certainly are sentences in which using "will" for
"is/are/am going to" and the like does not make sense, but it does in
my example.
Richard Yates
2018-07-10 04:15:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 01:22:03 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
Post by John Doe
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"?
There are many such three word expressions like "is going to" in which
the word "will" should be used for efficiency IMO. Any reason not to do
so?
Thanks.
Rhythm
Emphasis
Alliteration
Habit
Preference
Pay-by-the-word

BTW, why did you use "in which" in your post when "where" would have
saved you two letters and a space?
John Doe
2018-07-10 11:29:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Doe
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"?
There are many such three word expressions like "is going to" in
which the word "will" should be used for efficiency IMO. Any
reason not to do so?
Thanks.
Rhythm Emphasis Alliteration Habit Preference Pay-by-the-word
BTW, why did you use "in which" in your post when "where" would
have saved you two letters and a space?
Any reason for posting the same thing twice?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-07-10 11:34:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:29:34 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
Post by John Doe
Post by John Doe
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"?
There are many such three word expressions like "is going to" in
which the word "will" should be used for efficiency IMO. Any
reason not to do so?
Thanks.
Rhythm Emphasis Alliteration Habit Preference Pay-by-the-word
BTW, why did you use "in which" in your post when "where" would
have saved you two letters and a space?
Any reason for posting the same thing twice?
I have noticed a few double-postings today, from different people. It
may be a fault in a server somewhere.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Katy Jennison
2018-07-10 13:13:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:29:34 -0000 (UTC), John Doe >>
Post by John Doe
Any reason for posting the same thing twice?
I have noticed a few double-postings today, from different people. It
may be a fault in a server somewhere.
Someone seems to have locked Albasani in a closet for 48 hours, and the
rescue party has only just got there.
--
Katy Jennison
HVS
2018-07-10 13:23:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 14:13:57 +0100, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:29:34 -0000 (UTC), John Doe >>
Post by John Doe
Any reason for posting the same thing twice?
I have noticed a few double-postings today, from different
people. It
Post by Katy Jennison
may be a fault in a server somewhere.
Someone seems to have locked Albasani in a closet for 48 hours, and the
rescue party has only just got there.
(Like the allusion to the cave rescue; quite a story, that one.)
Richard Yates
2018-07-10 17:42:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:29:34 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
Post by John Doe
Post by John Doe
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"?
There are many such three word expressions like "is going to" in
which the word "will" should be used for efficiency IMO. Any
reason not to do so?
Thanks.
Rhythm Emphasis Alliteration Habit Preference Pay-by-the-word
BTW, why did you use "in which" in your post when "where" would
have saved you two letters and a space?
Any reason for posting the same thing twice?
Yes.
John Doe
2018-07-11 07:56:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Now the poster is into brevity...
--
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Yates <richard yatesguitar.com>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "England IS GOING TO be sorry..."
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:42:42 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <vvr9kd19te6qrrac6ra2rskdpc1uen8g6s 4ax.com>
References: <pi11nq$hpk$1 dont-email.me> <qcc8kd9t04f6udb6arcjrtfch180fsbhnc 4ax.com> <pi25at$t06$1 dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="188827ad82249aeee58c78afcd6d6617"; logging-data="20912"; mail-complaints-to="abuse eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/0sm9gqLS5Z50y2msp9v2HtlAOzOd+b34="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yRPgbI/Cbs9oAyxcF6t55dBwwbc=
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.usage.english:936647
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:29:34 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
Post by John Doe
Post by John Doe
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"?
There are many such three word expressions like "is going to" in
which the word "will" should be used for efficiency IMO. Any
reason not to do so?
Thanks.
Rhythm Emphasis Alliteration Habit Preference Pay-by-the-word
BTW, why did you use "in which" in your post when "where" would
have saved you two letters and a space?
Any reason for posting the same thing twice?
Yes.
HVS
2018-07-11 12:23:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Yates
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 01:22:03 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
Post by John Doe
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"?
There are many such three word expressions like "is going to" in which
the word "will" should be used for efficiency IMO. Any reason not to do
so?
Thanks.
Rhythm
Emphasis
Alliteration
Habit
Preference
Pay-by-the-word
I agree with that entirely, but striving for efficiency can improve the
aesthetics of a sentence, as well as clarity and precision.

When writing on screen, I have a tendency to add a completely superfluous
"which was" to sentences like "The building, which was completed in 1934,
was demolished in 1972".

I often don't spot it until I've printed it off for editing, at which point
the "which was" is almost always struck out, leaving "The building,
completed in 1934, was demolished in 1972". Which seems "cleaner" to me.

This thread came to mind yesterday, when I read the following quotation
from the US Dept of Defence:

(from https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/11/us_military_ai_snowden/)

“To continue to securely create, access, process, manipulate, and monitor
information, DoD CIO has the need to identify potential sources that can
provide a commercial off-the-shelf [solution] to implement discretionary
access controls on top of the currently established mandatory access
controls,” the department's officials wrote in their requirements.

I realise that DoD/civil-service-speak is a fish hanging about in a barrel
while it waits to be shot, but I don't expect that anyone will dispute that
that's one fugly sentence.

Re-writing the bit after "DoD CIO" as "needs to identify a commercial, off-
the-shelf system of discretionary access controls to run on top of existing
mandatory access controls" reduces the word count by more than a quarter,
and IMO improves clarity without any loss of precision.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed
HVS
2018-07-11 12:25:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HVS
Post by Richard Yates
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 01:22:03 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
Post by John Doe
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"?
There are many such three word expressions like "is going to" in which
the word "will" should be used for efficiency IMO. Any reason not to
do so?
Thanks.
Rhythm
Emphasis
Alliteration
Habit
Preference
Pay-by-the-word
I agree with that entirely, but striving for efficiency can improve the
aesthetics of a sentence, as well as clarity and precision.
When writing on screen, I have a tendency to add a completely
superfluous "which was" to sentences like "The building, which was
completed in 1934, was demolished in 1972".
I often don't spot it until I've printed it off for editing, at which
point the "which was" is almost always struck out, leaving "The
building, completed in 1934, was demolished in 1972". Which seems
"cleaner" to me.
This thread came to mind yesterday, when I read the following quotation
(from https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/11/us_military_ai_snowden/)
“To continue to securely create, access, process, manipulate, and
monitor information, DoD CIO has the need to identify potential sources
that can provide a commercial off-the-shelf [solution] to implement
discretionary access controls on top of the currently established
mandatory access controls,” the department's officials wrote in their
requirements.
I realise that DoD/civil-service-speak is a fish hanging about in a
barrel while it waits to be shot, but I don't expect that anyone will
dispute that that's one fugly sentence.
Re-writing the bit after "DoD CIO" as "needs to identify a commercial,
off- the-shelf system of discretionary access controls to run on top of
existing mandatory access controls" reduces the word count by more than
a quarter, and IMO improves clarity without any loss of precision.
I'm not sure what I did to reduce the size of the text in that message;
presumably something to do with cut-and-paste.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed
John Doe
2018-07-11 13:06:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HVS
I'm not sure what I did to reduce the size of the text in that
message; presumably something to do with cut-and-paste.
The first time I opened your message, the text was small. Now the
text is the correct size according to my settings.

So, apparently it is something that can be controlled from both
ends.
HVS
2018-07-11 14:02:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Doe
Post by HVS
I'm not sure what I did to reduce the size of the text in that
message; presumably something to do with cut-and-paste.
The first time I opened your message, the text was small. Now the
text is the correct size according to my settings.
I saw a similar effect: when I replied to myself, the small text had returned
to normal.
Post by John Doe
So, apparently it is something that can be controlled from both
ends.
Heigh-ho. The joys of encoding 'n' stuff.....
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed
Mark Brader
2018-07-11 19:07:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HVS
When writing on screen, I have a tendency to add a completely superfluous
"which was" to sentences like "The building, which was completed in 1934,
was demolished in 1972".
I don't see how you could sensibly add "which was" to that.
Post by HVS
I often don't spot it until I've printed it off for editing, at which point
the "which was" is almost always struck out, leaving "The building,
completed in 1934, was demolished in 1972". Which seems "cleaner" to me.
Of course it's a matter of style, not grammar or denotative meaning,
but I think the second version is worse. It suggests that the demolition
in 1972 had something to do with the completion in 1934.

If you're just trying to give the building's dates of "birth and
death", I'd go with something like "The building was completed in 1934
and demolished in 1972."

Thinking further about it, as a matter of style, as a matter of style,
I don't like "completed" unless you're making a point about the duration
of construction. So I'd really prefer "The building opened in 1934 and
was demolished in 1972."
--
Mark Brader "You can do this in a number of ways.
Toronto IBM chose to do all of them...
***@vex.net why do you find that funny?" --D. Taylor

My text in this article is in the public domain.
David Kleinecke
2018-07-11 20:37:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by HVS
When writing on screen, I have a tendency to add a completely superfluous
"which was" to sentences like "The building, which was completed in 1934,
was demolished in 1972".
I don't see how you could sensibly add "which was" to that.
Post by HVS
I often don't spot it until I've printed it off for editing, at which point
the "which was" is almost always struck out, leaving "The building,
completed in 1934, was demolished in 1972". Which seems "cleaner" to me.
Of course it's a matter of style, not grammar or denotative meaning,
but I think the second version is worse. It suggests that the demolition
in 1972 had something to do with the completion in 1934.
If you're just trying to give the building's dates of "birth and
death", I'd go with something like "The building was completed in 1934
and demolished in 1972."
Thinking further about it, as a matter of style, as a matter of style,
I don't like "completed" unless you're making a point about the duration
of construction. So I'd really prefer "The building opened in 1934 and
was demolished in 1972."
Building (1934-1972)
Quinn C
2018-07-12 21:22:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
If you're just trying to give the building's dates of "birth and
death", I'd go with something like "The building was completed in 1934
and demolished in 1972."
Thinking further about it, as a matter of style, as a matter of style,
I don't like "completed" unless you're making a point about the duration
of construction. So I'd really prefer "The building opened in 1934 and
was demolished in 1972."
I assume in the case of the Cologne Cathedral, you're fine with
"completed":

| Construction of Cologne Cathedral commenced in 1248 and was halted in
| 1473, leaving it unfinished. Work restarted in the 19th century and
| was completed, to the original plan, in 1880.

Or the Sagrada Família:

| In 1882, construction of Sagrada Família started [...] It is
| anticipated that the building can be completed by 2026

If this were a German group, I'd add Berlin Brandenburg Airport to this
illustrious list.
--
The need of a personal pronoun of the singular number and common
gender is so desperate, urgent, imperative, that ... it should long
since have grown on our speech -- The Atlantic Monthly (1878)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-10 10:55:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Doe
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"?
There are many such three word expressions like "is going to" in which
the word "will" should be used for efficiency IMO. Any reason not to do
so?
I think 'going to' more appropriately captures the element of
progression towards an inevitable and lasting fate. It gives
the context as 'maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but
soon and for the rest of your life'. 'Will' is too sudden
a fracture. It is much more natural to me to say "I'm going
to regret this." than "I will regret this."
CDB
2018-07-10 12:51:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"? There are many such three
word expressions like "is going to" in which the word "will" should
be used for efficiency IMO. Any reason not to do so?
I think 'going to' more appropriately captures the element of
progression towards an inevitable and lasting fate. It gives the
context as 'maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the
rest of your life'. 'Will' is too sudden a fracture. It is much more
natural to me to say "I'm going to regret this." than "I will regret
this."
It's a black day.
CDB
2018-07-10 12:46:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"? There are many such three word
expressions like "is going to" in which the word "will" should be
used for efficiency IMO. Any reason not to do so?
Efficiency, IMO, is sometimes overrated.

It seems to me that "will" puts more emphasis on the result, and "is
going to" on its imminence. It suggests a continued movement in the
direction of disaster.

Sorry? Sorry?? "England will weep tears of blood".

Did you use the all-caps "WILL" to indicate the topic, or is the speaker
emphasising the inevitability of sorrow?
John Doe
2018-07-11 07:51:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
Post by John Doe
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"?
Did you use the all-caps "WILL" to indicate the topic, or is the
speaker emphasising the inevitability of sorrow?
It matches the subject line, highlighting the words of interest.
CDB
2018-07-11 13:42:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Doe
Post by CDB
Post by John Doe
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"?
Did you use the all-caps "WILL" to indicate the topic, or is the
speaker emphasising the inevitability of sorrow?
It matches the subject line, highlighting the words of interest.
The first one, then. Thank you.
Loading...