0

If I have two sentences such as

  1. He is going to Paris next week.

  2. He is going to travel to Paris.

The first sentence is present continuous for future.

My question: What can I call the second sentence in the grammar?

I don't want to get a name like "future" I want a specific name e.g. (future simple - future continuous - and so on)

2
  • My question is How can I call the second sentence as A formal title? And you said that "call them whatever" – user82107 Sep 18 '18 at 19:01
  • Mr Lambie, I want to prove that two sentences are present continuous structure for expressing the future – user82107 Sep 18 '18 at 19:23
1

Wikipedia simply refers to it as the 'going-to future' tense. I don't know of any other name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going-to_future

0

1- He is going ||to Paris|| next week. [tell us where he is going, to is a preposition]

2- He is going ||to|| travel ||to Paris||. [tells us he is not sailing or walking or bicycling to Paris,for example]

Both verbs in both sentences are in the present continuous tense used as a future. Sentence 2 has a verb phrase after to.

What comes after the function word to shows the objective. travel to Paris is not part of the main verb. It is a verb phrase. Some would call it a predicate. It can be contrasted with other verbs: to ride to Paris, cycle to Paris, fly to Paris

We commonly refer to this as "going to" used as a future but strictly speaking that is wrong.

Also, note in 1) to is a preposition. In 2) to is a functional operator that precedes the verb or verb phrase.

Going in the continuous as a future (or present!) is:

I'm going [now:present or tomorrow:as future]

He's going.

She's going.

It's going.

They're going.

We're going.

You're going.

Nothing that comes after the word TO has anything at all to do with the continuous present of go used as a future in the OP's sentences.

4
  • 1
    "To travel to" doesn't tell us he's not sailing, walking or bicycling. All of those are forms of travel. – TypeIA Sep 18 '18 at 19:03
  • 1
    But the two sentences fall under the present continuous. even if theses sentences express about the future. If I am right please send me a proof because I'm trying to prove that to my friend – user82107 Sep 18 '18 at 19:13
  • @Lambie No, it most definitely does not. Walking is a form of traveling, as are bicycling and sailing. For example, Christopher Columbus traveled to the New World, but he did it by sailing in a ship. Lance Armstrong and his teammates traveled 3,500 km around the French countryside, all on bicycles. Are you a native speaker? – TypeIA Sep 18 '18 at 19:27
  • TypeIA I am a dyed-in-the-wool native speaker. "to travel to Paris" is syntagmatic to other possible verbs that could be used. Substitution is a common way to illustrate grammar points. [the spellcheck program says syntagmatic is a misspelled word. That shows how anti-structuralist this site is. Ha ha] – By saying travel, the speaker is not saying: bicycling, riding, sailing, or something else. The fact they are all forms of travel is not the point at all. The point is travel could be something else. The extra infor. in the sentence 2 is precisely: travel, as opposed to something else. – Lambie Sep 18 '18 at 19:53

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.