0
  1. I will go jogging tomorrow when there are no cars in the streets.
  2. I will go jogging tomorrow, when there will be no cars in the streets.

They should be understood as follows:

Tomorrow, at a time when there are no cars, I will go jogging. There will be no cars in the streets tomorrow, which is why I will go jogging.

I don't see any differences in these two sentences 1 and 2 :for me they have the same meaning both express the idea that I will go jogging because they will be no cars in the street.

https://jakubmarian.com/will-after-when-in-english/

Will” after “when” in English by Jakub Marian

Improve this question
3
  • The literal meaning of when is simply at that [same] time - it doesn't explicitly indicate any particular relationship between preceding and following clauses. It might be contextually likely that you specifically choose to jog at that time, but only your which is why version explicitly makes that point. In winter I [have to] drive to work when it's dark certainly doesn't imply choice or reason.
    – FumbleFingers
    Nov 27, 2022 at 18:25
  • Your cited link is making a pretty obscure point that even most native speakers probably wouldn't naturally recognize (so to some extent it's a "spurious" distinction). What he's claiming is that #1 (using "Present as Future") refers to some specific time tomorrow when there are no cars (there may be many cars at other times tomorrow), whereas he claims #2 simply refers to "tomorrow" with the implication that there won't be many cars at any time tomorrow. But that's a rather dodgy assertion that not everyone would understand. Lots of us would just assume the second meaning for both
    – FumbleFingers
    Nov 27, 2022 at 18:37
  • 1
    There's two differences, the tense and the comma. The comma changes the meaning of the clause after it more than the change of verb does. Are you asking about the difference with the comma as well as the different verbs?
    – gotube ♦
    Nov 27, 2022 at 19:58

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

The two sentences are different. In the first, the absence of cars is a condition that you use to choose the precise time during the day when you will go jogging. In the second, the observation of the absence of cars is parenthetical, and could be removed from the sentence without changing its core assertion about your jogging.

  1. I will go jogging tomorrow (at a time) when there are no cars in the streets.
  2. I will go jogging tomorrow (in any case), when (by the way) there will be no cars in the streets.
Improve this answer
0

The first form would be normal. It means I will go jogging tomorrow, and at the time I go jogging there will be no cars. I suppose this means that you will go jogging either very early or very late.

The second is odd I doubt you'd actually hear this being used - so what it means is a bit pointless. But I suppose it could mean that the statement about "no cars" is a description of tomorrow. And you expect that during all of tomorrow the streets will be empty.

It would be a pretty subtle difference and I doubt I'd actually understand that without thinking "hmm that is a pretty weird thing to say, I wonder if he means that their won't be any cars tomorrow."

It's pretty hard to find consistent interpretations of weird, counterintuitive, anti-pragmatic sentences. After all, in the real world, there are always some cars, even at 4 am, even on Christmas day. And since you understand in context, it is hard to unpick the subtle nuance of meaning when the pragmatic interpretation is acting against it.

If you did want to give the second meaning you would do much better to be explicit:

Tomorrow is the Emperor's birthday, and every has the day off work. Even driving is forbidden! I'll go jogging tomorrow because there will be no cars on the streets.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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