The BYU corpus gives 38 results for “in future ,” many of which appear to be uttered by foreigners on American TV shows. Some of the examples appear to have been uttered by people with foreign language interference. It gives 2,649 for “in the future ,”.
The BNC gives 462 results for “in the future ,” and 251 for “in future ,”. It’s not clear from all the results that the distinction in meaning between the two that Alan mentioned is made by all of the speakers and writers who uttered the sentences.
I don’t call this rip-roaring support for your premise. All the results mean is that sometimes some people leave the definite article out of the expression “in the future”, but it doesn’t mean it’s normal for most speakers.
Nigerian English is irrelevant, by the way, because, like Arabic speakers, many Nigerians have problems with appropriate article usage (especially the indefinite article, but also the definite article) when they speak or write in English. (You’re not really from Nigeria anyway, so you wouldn’t exactly be the one to be talking about Nigerian English.)
A. How long does “always” mean? Did they use it in the time of King Alfred? I doubt it.
B. The fact that Americans don’t use it is an indication that it’s probably a later development that didn’t cross the ocean.
C. I was correct in my assessment of the form for the majority of the world’s native English speakers, as attested by the results from the corpora. (That is, if you can trust corpora results.)
If they did, you Yanks wouldn’t have known about, that’s for sure. :lol:
Is that any reason for a, supposedly, educated, well-traveled/travelled guy such as yourself, not to know of its existence?
Not at all, Jamie. Nonsense. Sorry to inform you, but “the majority of the world’s native English speakers”, whoever they may be, are not the only model for English usage.
.
I associate the expression ‘in future’ with British English. I wouldn’t expect to hear it used in American English except for in telegraphic language (i.e. types of writing which omit words, such as headlines or bullets).
.
used at the beginning or end of a sentence in which there is a decision about a plan of action or a warning:
Could you be more careful in future?
In future I won’t bother asking him out anywhere if he’s just going to complain that he’s bored!
In future I’m going to check every single piece of work that you do!
I wouldn’t expect to hear it used in American English [color=blue]except for in telegraphic language (i.e. types of writing which omit words, such as headlines or bullets).
One off-topic question if you will permit: Can one omit the “for” or the “in” above?
e.g.
I wouldn’t expect to hear it used in American English except in telegraphic language (i.e. types of writing which omit words, such as headlines or bullets).
I wouldn’t expect to hear it used in American English except for telegraphic language (i.e. types of writing which omit words, such as headlines or bullets).
I wonder how this [color=blue]“MAINLY UK” compares with '[color=red]“Don’t do it again in future,” is a grammatically incorrect, Chinglish-sounding sentence. It absolutely must be, “Don’t do it again in the future.” There’s no question about it." in the minds of most ESL students and teachers and in the minds of most lexicographers. Why don’t you ask 'em?
And, would you say MAINLY UK only means “mainly used in the UK” or can it also mean “mainly used in, or stemming from, the UK”. There’re a lot of UK folks living around the world, Jamie. Lots of ESL and ex-ESL students have also studied in the UK or have been taught by expat-UK teachers. Hard to tell how large the spread of “in future” is really.
So, do you still think it is grammatically incorrect?
Hic, too much argument now. I’m getting dumb.
Let’s get back to our original matter:
1/ If “in future” is all right in formal British English, then the sentence “Experts believe that IN NEAR FUTURE the problems that prevent us from exploiting fully the food, minerals, and energy sources of the sea will be largely solved” is also correct, isn’t it?
2/ If I could speak Spanish, I would spend the next year studying in Mexico
=> I hope somebody could give me some more clarification on this. I still think “spend next year” is more ok here. I’ve made a search in the BNC but found only a few results for both syntax. And I don’t think “next year” without “the” can’t be considered a noun (as Haihao said). Please have a look at these:
Next year will be the year of the buffalo.
Besides, I do agree with Molly about her explanation for the use of “the” here:
(From Molly:
I wouldn’t advise “the” there if the meaning is “the year after this one”.
If, speaking in December 2008 for example, it means “if I could speak Spanish well by next December (Dec. 2009), I would spend the next year (2010) studying in Mexico”, the the article is OK)
Do you think that “Experts believe that FROM NEAR NOW ON the problems that prevent us from exploiting fully the food, minerals, and energy sources of the sea will be largely solved” is the same as your IN NEAR FUTURE? “In future” is a fixed-form (meaning “from now on”). It cannot be split.
“In the near future” again expresses a time separated from the present. That is not the same as “in future” (from NOW on), which expresses a time connected to the present and moving forward.
Up until this discussion I was not aware of the difference between ‘in future’ and ‘in the future’. Lately, I have been listening to Paul McKenna who is British but created an audio course for the US market and he constantly says ‘in future’. I wonder how his American audience reacts to this. Will they think he speaks English as a second language?[YSaerTTEW443543]
I wasn’t aware of the difference either, Torsten. My guess is that what Americans think of Paul McKenna saying “in future” will depend on the individual. Many of them might not notice it. A few might notice it and think, “Oh, that must be how the British say it!” and maybe even imitate it, upon which their fellow Americans will assume they don’t know grammar, or maybe have picked up a bad habit from their Polish grandparents. Others might notice it and think, “Well, motivational speakers usually don’t have good English skills,” and ignore it. They’d react to it the same way they do to a Robert Kiyosaki book that’s full of typos.
I had never heard of Paul McKenna before reading your post.