0

For example,

I’m going to eat. It means to eat is intended and to eat isn’t needed to happen.

For example,

I’m trying to eat. To eat isn’t needed to happen but is tried.

“Will” means ‘be going to.’ Does it mean action isn’t needed to happen?

It makes sense that I would eat but I didn’t eat. And that’s the reason I think so.

user09827
  • 305
  • 2
  • 8

2 Answers2

0

No. If you say "I'm going to eat.", you are asserting that you will eat. It may turn out that your assertion is false, but that is a separate matter unrelated to the content of your assertion. It is different from saying "I'm trying to eat.", in which case you are merely asserting that you are trying "to eat".

user21820
  • 1,462
  • 12
  • 18
0

Will X means

  • X is expected to be true or happen in the future,

  • and will does not provide information any state of desire, need, correctness, or ability, though ability is implied (generally you will not do something you cannot).

If you want to say "X needs to happen", you likely want to say must X.

Understand that must X is not synonymous with need to X - must X really means "X is required" - and that requirement typically comes from logic/deduction (diameter must be 2 x radius, Mary must have been here because she left her jacket), consequences (I must eat to avoid hunger), or authority (you must turn in your report by today).

If none of those apply just use the word "need". Must need X is also possible.

I would eat but I didn’t eat.

When we get to the word but, at that point in the sentence, we already know you didn't eat. Speaker/listener is expecting the reason why you wouldn't eat after but.

LawrenceC
  • 36,836
  • 27
  • 81