How do you distinguish between the future tense with noun clauses versus those with time clause?

Question

I am confused about using the future tense in noun clauses versus time clauses.

I know that the future tense is not used in time clauses, but that it can be used with noun clauses.

However, I am having trouble differentiating between noun clauses and time clauses in a sentence such as:

I know when he will come.
I will buy this when he asks me to.

In those two sentences, how can I determine that the dependent clause is acting as a noun clause and not as a time clause?

In 1. the when clause is an interrogative complement clause functioning as complement to "know". The meaning is "I know the answer to the question 'When will he come?"' In 2, by contrast, the clause is in fact a temporal adjunct. — BillJ, Dec 06 '16 at 17:26
Closely related: Can I use “when” + future tense in this case? and “When X is” or “When X will be”?. — , Dec 06 '16 at 18:42

aparente001 · Accepted Answer · 2016-12-10T06:18:20.817

3

I am sure that deadrat's answer is authoritative and complete, but I am going to give you a simpler approach in case you are having trouble with deadrat's. Maybe mine will be too simple -- let's see.

For each of your sample sentences, let's see what type of question fits. We should try to write a when question if we can. If that doesn't work, then we'll write a when question.

I will use your example sentences, but with a few little changes.

Statement 1: Mama knows when Ricky will come.

Question 1: What does Mama know?

A "when" question wouldn't work here, so we write a "what" question.

Statement 2: Bruno will buy the new sofa when Papa gives him the money for it.

Question 2: When will Bruno buy the new sofa?

A "when" question works, so we stop there.

edited Dec 10 '16 at 06:18

answered Dec 08 '16 at 05:10

aparente001

21,530

I think you should make clear that a what question means you're dealing with an object and a when question means you have an adverbial modifier of time. 2. I think you mean If that doesn't work, then we'll write a what question. 3. You can stop at when with Bruno, but a "what" question wouldn't work if you didn't. I like it enough to upvote it.

deadrat

Dec 08 '16 at 07:55

@deadrat - Please feel free to edit my answer -- if you don't feel like it, I will but later. – aparente001 Dec 08 '16 at 17:52

score 1 · Answer 2 · edited Dec 08 '16 at 04:53

1

Alas, the answer is context, both syntactic and semantic. This answer may be unsatisfying because it doesn't give a general rule. But let's look at your examples. For the sentence

I know when he will come.

the subordinate clause is the direct object of know (and thus a noun clause). It can't be an adjunct, that is, a modifier of know, because know is present tense, and it's hard to see how a future action, one that hasn't happened yet, can affect the manner of knowing now. It's possible, however to construct an ambiguous sentence. Consider the following exchanges, perhaps from trial testimony:

Q1: What did you know about the robbery?
A1: I knew when he robbed a bank, but I didn't know which bank.

Noun clause: what I knew.

Q2: When did you realize he was dangerous?
A2: I knew when he robbed the bank, but not before.

Adverbial adjunct of time: when I knew.

Note that to know has a strong attraction for an immediately following direct object. You generally don't leave out what you know, unless it's clear from context:

Q3: Do you know that your shoe is untied?
A3: Yes, I know.

Clearly meaning I know that my shoe is untied.

Which is why A2 would more likely be phrased as

A2a: When he robbed the bank, I knew, but not before.

In your second example

I will buy this when he asks me to.

you know that the subordinate clause is an adjunct and not an object for two reasons. First, because this occupies the slot of direct object (the thing bought). If buy is to be used ditransitively, i.e., if it is to take a second object, such a second object must be an indirect object (the receiver of the purchase):

I will buy him this.

But a when clause can't mean a receiver of a transfer.

Secondly, the clause when he asks me to names a point in time, which is not a thing you can buy. So even if the sentence didn't already have a direct object, a point in time wouldn't make a suitable substitute direct object.

Thus with the clause precluded as an object, it must be an adjunct.

edited Dec 08 '16 at 04:53

aparente001

21,530

answered Dec 06 '16 at 18:07

deadrat

44,678

@Rathony Did the edit take care of it? – deadrat Dec 06 '16 at 21:04
Not sure what the problem was, but I don't see any errors. Great answer, but would suggest fleshing out the part at the very end. – aparente001 Dec 06 '16 at 23:52
@aparente001 Can you give me an idea of what you think is lacking or unclear. Thanks. – deadrat Dec 07 '16 at 16:33
Sure. "couldn't serve because it isn't" -- What couldn't it serve as? What is "it"? In a thorough, carefully written answer like this, why not spell it out more clearly for the bleary-eyed. – aparente001 Dec 07 '16 at 17:15
@aparente001 Clearly someone bleary-eyed wrote the original. Clear as mud. I've tried a rewording. Check to make sure I haven't made things worse. Be sure to include @ nym for me so I get pinged. – deadrat Dec 08 '16 at 04:16
@Rathony I can't even read what I write anymore. I fixed the is be and removed the confusing that, but I don't understand your comment about a prepositional phrase, which can't serve as an indirect object. – deadrat Dec 08 '16 at 04:18
I knew it would be confusing. Let me take an example. "Buy me a drink": Me is an indirect object and a drink is a direct object. However, "Buy a drink for me", a drink is a (direct) object and for me is a prepositional phrase which is also called an indirect object by some grammarians. So, for ditransitive verbs like buy or give, etc., the position of two objects could be swapped if you use a preposition. The indirect object which is used with a preposition is also called a prepositional phrase. I hope it clarifies. this occupies the slot of direct object could be misleading. – Dec 08 '16 at 07:45
... because this is a direct object in "I will buy this" and there can't be another direct object, only indirect object in the form of a prepositional phrase. This ditransitive and monotransitive things are the most difficult part in grammar to explain with logic. – Dec 08 '16 at 07:45
@Rathony Thanks. I'm too old to call a prepositional phrase an indirect object. Consider these two sentences: I will buy this whatever he says** and I will buy this for whatever he says**. – deadrat Dec 08 '16 at 07:49
I also don't like calling a prepositional phrase an indirect object. Actually I am strongly opposed to it. (You can read Greg Lee's comment here, http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/87087/sentence-pattern-clarification). Anyway, it's not important. The two sentences don't seem like a usual pattern for ditransitive usage. If "whatever he says" is a direct object in No. (1), I wonder what would be "this"? Also, I think the second sentence should be "I will buy whatever he says for this" as the positions should be swapped. Hmm... – Dec 08 '16 at 07:53

How do you distinguish between the future tense with noun clauses versus those with time clause?

2 Answers2