2

[Source:] !! Do not use the future tense after unless
[✓] I won't go unless you go
[✘] [I won't go] unless you will go. [✘]

Why not? Even if the above is prescriptive, what may be some reasons? In my separate question here, I quote: unless = if not. If not can precede future tense; so why can't unless?

Footnote: This Wordreference.com question motivated this.

Community
  • 1
  • "Unless" does not equal "if not". If it did, you could grammatically replace "if not" in the good sentence and have it be correct, but it is not. "I won't go if not* you go" is not good grammar. Please explain here* why you think they are equivalent and an example of such. – Catija May 01 '15 at 04:00
  • @Catija Please confirm if you read http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/12238/5306 (As linked above)? I adduced 2 books on logic there about this. Please advise whether I ought to adduce them here too. –  May 01 '15 at 04:02
  • 5
    If you're going to ask a question here, you shouldn't require that someone go to another page to actually see the content of the question. This question should (in my opinion) be able to stand on its own. Also, your own source doesn't say that "unless" is equivalent to "if not" it says "if ... not" the "..." is important, as it means that something comes between the "if" and the "not". – Catija May 01 '15 at 04:08
  • 1
    It's not actually true, though most of the time it would be semantically odd to include will. I can't understand the part about if not preceding will. –  May 01 '15 at 07:15
  • See my answer to your other question about "unless". – TimR May 01 '15 at 13:59

2 Answers2

2

The premise of your question is wrong. This is because there is no future tense in English. We can refer to future time in many ways. One way is to use the simple present, as in:

1 Unless I see the money on my desk by tomorrow 9am, you're a dead man.

The modal will can also be used to refer to future time. This seems to be the construction you're asking about, so I'll bold an example:

2 Unless they will agree to paint the house red, do not hire them.

(It has been stated that "(this usage of will) is not exactly about the future; it's about volition, i.e. "will" (or willingness)." To which, I reply that as uttered by someone, I am not sure we can neatly cleave willingness and referring to future time. I will go with you is expressing one's present willingness to perform the stated action in the future). Even so, I offer another example:

3 Unless they'll go to see Star Wars tomorrow, I'm not going with them.

But so can about ten other constructions, including these common ones:

4 Unless I am seeing the money on my desk in five minutes, you're a dead man.

5 Unless you are going to tell me the real reason, don't bother to open your mouth.

6 I don't want to bother you for a ride to Boston, unless you'll be driving there anyway.

7 Unless you're about to leave, don't bother washing the car windows.

8 We're going to have way too much work to do unless you are to come to your senses and hire some temps.

(Granted the last construction {to be plus to} is rather stilted and part of 'old school' business language.)

Edited to add:
Other examples of present progressive to refer to future time:

9 Unless I'm sitting here and hearing the sound of your feet walking up the stairs to my office in five minutes, don't bother to come.

10 You can't have any unless you're doing your homework in five minutes.

Also note the response to the question Can I have some candy?:

11 No you may not. Not unless you're doing your homework in five minutes.*

Etc.

Community
  • 1
  • 2
    "Unless I am seeing the money..." is not right. It should just be "Unless I see the money...". – Catija May 01 '15 at 14:27
  • 1
    No, the present progressive can be used to 'stretch out' the moment indicated by the simple present. –  May 01 '15 at 14:35
  • 5
    Um... as a native AmE speaker, I'm telling you, it sounds like something a person who doesn't speak English natively would say. It is not natural English, regardless of what your book might say. Oh, and I went to UT, too :) – Catija May 01 '15 at 14:43
  • The use of present progressive for stative verbs is fine, and of growing usage. You mayn't like it. But perhaps it's more palatable coupled with a less stative verb: Unless I'm sitting here and hearing the sound of your feet walking up the stairs to my office in five minutes, don't bother to come. And the only book I'm using is the book of English. –  May 01 '15 at 14:52
  • A dynamic verb example: Unless you're doing your homework in five minutes, you can't have any. Does that work for you? (The use of stative verbs might be problematic for some, but unless you're not hearing how English is being used these days, even by native speakers, I dunno what to say. And if we can apply this for the present, so can we for future time.) –  May 01 '15 at 14:53
  • So use one of those examples. The one you have sounds wrong and no one would actually say it. I'm not arguing that the general use is wrong, I'm arguing that that particular sentence is unnatural. – Catija May 01 '15 at 14:55
  • 1
    @catija is quite right. pazzo, your example in the comment sounds natural because "You're doing your homework" sounds natural on its own. "I'm seeing the money", on the other hand, does NOT sound natural on its own. It's not something a native speaker would say. They would say "I see the money". That's why "unless I see the money..." sounds right, and "unless I'm seeing the money..." sounds wrong. And believe me as another native speaker—it DOES sound wrong. This sort of construction is NOT becoming more common. (Also, there's is no "book of English") – user428517 May 01 '15 at 17:10
  • @sgroves yes, thanks! That's a great way of explaining it. Even with the word "seeing", you can make a sentence that does work: If you said "Unless I'm seeing things, that's a lion and we should run" that's perfectly fine because "seeing things" is a natural idiom. – Catija May 01 '15 at 17:19
  • @sgroves and Catija, I humbly but persistently disagree. I'm seeing the sentence disputed right now is fine for present time. I'm hearing my name being called and I'm understanding the concept more and more. FWIW, I'm a native speaker. –  May 01 '15 at 17:50
  • @pazzo, I agree that it's fine, but it still sounds weird, and unnatural. Most people wouldn't say that. I don't understand why you would encourage a non-native speaker to learn structures that native speakers don't often use. It might be technically correct, but isn't the goal here to teach others English as it's actually used? – user428517 May 01 '15 at 18:18
  • 1
    @sgroves But that is how English is actually used! I can't help that it sounds weird and/or unnatural to a certain portion of the English speaking world. (And, overall, in my answers, I try to distinguish between merely grammatical correctness and actual usage.) –  May 01 '15 at 18:24
  • i'd love to see your research on usage examples. i would bet good money that those constructions are very uncommon. please prove me wrong, though. also, "grammatically correct" is meaningless. correct according to whom? usage is all that matters. – user428517 May 01 '15 at 18:34
  • @sgroves et al., Perhaps you can start with the ELL post Stative Verbs in the progressive, noting especially the comments to the original post. Afar from ELL, and a very great source: just do an internet search "progressive aspect with stative verbs". There is a lot out there. Hint: check the pdf returns. Third, consult such books as Meaning and the English Verb (3rd ed.) by Geoffrey Leech, although he mentions these matters only in passing. –  May 01 '15 at 19:17
  • But we're not talking about the rule in general. We're talking about that specific use of it. I even used a version that sounds fine. – Catija May 01 '15 at 19:53
  • exactly @catija. not every "rule" applies to every sentence. language is not defined by rules. I would love to find just one native speaker who thinks "Unless I am seeing the money on my desk in five minutes, you're a dead man." sounds natural. It sounds very stilted and weird. – user428517 May 01 '15 at 21:14
  • @sgroves You mean another native speaker besides me. I have never said it is something one would say everyday. But it is possible in a certain context and, yes, in a certain manner of speaking. But it is not impossible. –  May 02 '15 at 14:41
  • I don't have any problem with unless I'm seeing the money or unless you're doing your homework since there are contexts where they can be said idiomatically, but I do not construe them as references to future-time as user6951 does. The present and present continuous statements are, in effect, booleans (a declaration reducible to true or false). Unless the light is on, unless the candle is shining in the window, don't knock on the door. That's for me why the statements using the future (e.g. "unless they will agree to paint the house red") are non-idiomatic. A statement about ... – TimR Apr 23 '17 at 14:14
  • ...the future is not reducible to true or false. He is wearing a black hat: True or False? He will be wearing a black hat: True or False? You can't really ask "true or false" about a prediction. – TimR Apr 23 '17 at 14:14
1

We can say:

Don't bid on the Cezanne unless you see me tugging on my earlobe.

The clause that follows unless must be an assertion against which the relevant circumstances can be compared.

A statement in the future tense does not express a valid condition; we cannot measure the present against the future; conditionals do not work that way.

Don't bid on the Cezanne unless you will see me tugging on my earlobe. [not ok]

Don't eat the seafood if it is spoiled.

*Don't eat the seafood if it will be spoiled. [makes no sense]

Don't eat the seafood unless it is fresh.

Don't eat the seafood unless it will be fresh. [not ok]

P.S. These present tense assertions in conditional contexts act as booleans. A statement about the present is reducible to true or false:

He is wearing a black hat. (true or false?)

But a statement about the future is essentially a prediction, and predictions cannot be reduced to true or false.

He will be wearing a black hat. True or false? (the question is "off")

When setting conditions, we can refer to:

the present (unless he is wearing a black hat)
the past (unless he was wearing a black hat)
and the past as seen from the point of view of the present (unless he has been wearing|has worn a black hat)

If we say "unless he will wear a black hat, don't cast him as the villain", will is not a future but means "unless he agrees|is willing to wear a black hat". The statement becomes possible when we take will to have a present-tense meaning.

P.P.S. There is a difference between will and is going to here. If you listen to native speakers speaking, they choose is going to over will after unless.

The present tense makes the predicate reducible to a boolean true/false.

You won't need your umbrella, unless it is going to rain. idiomatic
You won't need your umbrella, unless it will rain. unidiomatic

TimR
  • 123,877
  • 7
  • 100
  • 202
  • Thanks. Would you please explain how why we cannot measure the present against the future ? How do conditionals not work that way ? –  May 13 '15 at 00:41
  • Will you please to respond in your answer, which is easier to read than comments? –  May 13 '15 at 00:42
  • You cannot decide until you reach the fork in the river. – TimR May 13 '15 at 10:15