1

(1) It is estimated that the number of people who will visit Japan this year will reach 19 million.

(2) It is estimated that the number of people who visit Japan this year will reach 19 million.

Am I right in thinking who visit in (2) is simplified version of who will visit in (1). There is a similar sentence in 556 "Tense Simplification" of Practical English Usage by Michael Swan:

He says he'll give five pounds to anybody who finds his pen.

Improve this question
3
  • 3
    In that context, yes, will is not required, even if it said "next year". But I wouldn't call "who visit" a "simplified version". And who visit could be replaced with visiting or who will have visited.
    – TimR on some device
    Sep 1 at 12:02
  • Interestingly, 'who will visit' and 'who visit' are both available here, whereas 'He says he'll give five pounds to anybody who will find his pen' sounds wrong in the pure future sense and somewhat strange in the 'will undertake to' sense. A padded 'He says he'll give five pounds to anybody who will find his pen for him' becomes more idiomatic.
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Sep 1 at 14:16
  • It sounds strange to me.
    – Casey
    Sep 1 at 18:27

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

If you say "the number of people who visit Japan every year", that makes sense, because you are relating existing information.

On the other hand, when referring to this year, which isn't yet finished, that number doesn't exist. The fact that a prediction is made about the number underlines that it doesn't exist yet. I think that "who will visit" should not be reduced to "who visit" in that example.

Your other example doesn't fit, because the main clause contains the contracted "he will", which puts the whole thing in a hypothetical future.

Improve this answer
2
  • The sentence 2's main clause too contains "will reach". Doesn't this justifies the reduction of "will visit" to "visit"?
    – Aki
    Sep 2 at 15:04
  • I don't think so. When you say "the number of people who visit Japan each year", you are making a general statement. But when you are talking about a particular year, it's not a general statement, so I think the verb should be inflected for tense.
    – Jack O'Flaherty
    Sep 2 at 18:52

You must log in to answer this question.

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