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.

6
  • 1
    Unless it's a specific context where will is being used primarily so it can be given added stress (to express resolute determination on the part of the speaker), there's usually no real difference between I will eat and I'm going to eat. Commented Jan 9, 2022 at 12:31
  • ...but I always like to draw attention to this comment by Peter Shor about the difference between being warned that an animal will bite or is going to bite. Commented Jan 9, 2022 at 12:33
  • 2
    Does this answer your question? In-depth explanation of the difference between "will" and "going to"? Commented Jan 9, 2022 at 12:35
  • @FumbleFingers But it makes sense that the flower would bloom yesterday but it didn’t bloom.
    – user09827
    Commented Jan 9, 2022 at 12:58
  • 1
    I would eat but I didn't eat is meaningless in modern English ('I would eat' used to mean 'I want to eat' ). Commented Jan 9, 2022 at 15:16

2 Answers 2

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".

2
  • OP is asking about will / be going to, not try to. Commented Jan 9, 2022 at 12:36
  • @FumbleFingers: I already addressed that in my first two sentences. My last sentence was only in case the asker was confused with "trying to eat".
    – user21820
    Commented Jan 9, 2022 at 12:49
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.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .