coloured future

Jespersen has said that, when referring to the future, "will" is often coloured by an element of volition and "shall" by obligation. Joos has said that "be going to" seems to be the only uncoloured futue English has.

Do you think Jespersen and Joos are right?

I'm a non native English speaker, but it makes sense to me. Probably going to refers to an immediate future and will to an undefined future , what do you think?

<Probably going to refers to an immediate future and will to an undefined future , what do you think? >

Probably, but it's not distance in time that I'm interested in here. I'm questioning colourings.

There are many cases where "will" is neutral:

"In both 2008 and 2014, Easter will fall on Sunday."

You can also say "falls" or "is going to fall" in this sentence.


"Shall" is often used in a normative way in specs:

"The overflow exception shall be signaled iff the destination format's largest finite number is exceedd in magnitude by what would have been the rounded floating-point result (Section 4) were the exponent range unbounded."

There are many cases where "will" is neutral:

"In both 2008 and 2014, Easter will fall on Sunday."

You can also say "falls" or "is going to fall" in this sentence.


"Shall" is often used in a normative way in specs:

"The overflow exception shall be signaled iff the destination format's largest finite number is exceedd in magnitude by what would have been the rounded floating-point result (Section 4) were the exponent range unbounded."

<There are many cases where "will" is neutral:

"In both 2008 and 2014, Easter will fall on Sunday."

You can also say "falls" or "is going to fall" in this sentence. >

I'm not sure that answers the thread question.


"Shall" is often used in a normative way in specs:

<"The overflow exception shall be signaled iff the destination format's largest finite number is exceedd in magnitude by what would have been the rounded floating-point result (Section 4) were the exponent range unbounded." >

Or that.

<>'will' and 'going to' are both mostly neutral. >>

What do you mean by "neutral"?

The distinction, as Fowler notes, is based on far more than "will" simply expressing volition (e.g. "A coat will last two years with care."). But you needn't really worry, as the distinction hasn't been observed in North America, Ireland, or Scotland for quite some time, and is openly flouted even in its stronghold, the south of England. It was born—made up, really—in the early modern period, and it will probably not outlive the 21st century.

<<It was born—made up, really—in the early modern period, and it will probably not outlive the 21st century. >>

Like "whom", hopefully.

<<Like "whom", hopefully. >>

I wonder if "who" ever replace "whom" in this phrase:

"To whom it may concern:"

<I wonder if "who" ever replace "whom" in this phrase:

"To whom it may concern:" >

That phrase should be replaced by "I know I should know who I am writing to, but...".