future tense

A

Antonio3662918

Member
California
English -US
Hello,
In an old Arabic course book of mine I noticed it said you could form the Arabic future tense by adding either 'sa' or 'sawfa' (I think.) It's MSA. I wanted to know if these are interchangeable, and if they are, is either one of them used more often? In spoken MSA, is it normal to pronounce the future particle or would you most likely leave it off? I know in several languages they depend on other words to let the listener know about the future tense instead of changing the verb. (Japanese, etc.) Thank you.
-Antonio
 
    • Hello Antonio,

    Antonio3662918 said:
    I wanted to know if these are interchangeable, and if they are, is either one of them used more often?
    Click to expand...
    They're not really interchangeable, nor is one of them more used than the other. It all depends on the meaning you want to convey.
    Maybe this older thread would tell you more about this subject.
    In spoken MSA, is it normal to pronounce the future particle or would you most likely leave it off?
    Click to expand...
    If you leave it off you won't be expressing future. So it should be pronounced.
    I know in several languages they depend on other words to let the listener know about the future tense instead of changing the verb.
    Click to expand...
    In Arabic, even colloquial forms, there should be an indicator of the future, because the verb's form itself is the same as the present المضارع :
    aktub أكتب (present tense of I write)
    sa-aktub or sawfa-aktub سأكتب، سوف أكتب (I will write)


    P.S. We have also a thread about forming the future in colloquial forms of Arabic, if you're interested. :)
     
    Sometimes, the present tense alone is sufficient to express the future tense in Arabic - but not always. This is no different from many other languages.
     
    Cherine,

    They're not really interchangeable
    Click to expand...

    Are you sure they are not interchangeable?
    If I were to say سوف أذهب إلى البحر or
    if I were to say سأذهب إلى البحر
    would I not be conveying the same message? I saw in the thread you linked to that you stated one is far off in the future and one is in the immediate future, but I've never noticed this difference before, and have seen them used interchangeably.
     
    I think HKK answered for me :)
    Nowadays, many subtilities and nuances in Arabic usage are not sensed and -as a result- not differentiated. sawfa and sa are not supposed to be synonyms, but these days they are.
    Jalasa and qa3ada, masha and saara, takallama and ta7addatha, raqada and istalqa..... are used interchangeably now, but I think they're supposed to have different connotation, which is not sensed/felt... anymore.
     
    elroy said:
    Sometimes, the present tense alone is sufficient to express the future tense in Arabic - but not always.
    Click to expand...
    Would that be the case in this sample dialogue with غداً, for example? (from a textbook I've come across):

    - متى يأتي المدرس الجديد؟
    - المدرس الجديد يأتي غداً_
     
    linguist786 said:
    If it helps, سوف is translated in Urdu as "عن قريب" - which is also an Arabic term. It means something like "very soon".
    Click to expand...

    This is not helpful for Arabic, because the meaning is the opposite. سوف as in the thread Cherine has linked above refers to the distant future, not the near future.
     
    cherine said:
    ...Nowadays, many subtilities and nuances in Arabic usage are not sensed and -as a result- not differentiated. sawfa and sa are not supposed to be synonyms, but these days they are.
    Click to expand...
    Hello Cherine,

    This is very interesting because a number of grammar books (including Haywood and Nahmad, which teaches the classical language as well as MSA), doesn’t differentiate between the use of sa and sawfa. In fact, it says the former is a contraction of the latter!

    Other grammar books I have say the same.

    Sigianga said:
    Would that be the case in this sample dialogue with غداً, for example? (from a textbook I've come across):

    - متى يأتي المدرس الجديد؟
    - المدرس الجديد يأتي غداً_
    Click to expand...

    Elroy has already confirmed this but I’ll just add a point or two

    As the time frame for the future is given by غداً it means you do not need the future particles س and سوف here.

    The imperfect (المضارع) is just unfinished action and for a future connotation we either need to use the prefixes س or سوف or give a future time frame.

    I have, btw, a related question for everyone about the Arabic Future tense.

    Recently I was perusing the book “Standard Arabic” by Eckehard Schulz et al. They give this intriguing example:

    << The particle قَد+ imperfect tense meaning “perhaps” also denotes a future action or event as possibility:

    Perhaps, he will write قَد یَکتُبُ >>

    What do you all say?

    I’m very familiar with the Future Perfect where the use of قَد is optional but nevertheless used, e.g.

    Ja3far would have written
    يكون جعفر كتب = يكون جعفر قد كتب

    But the use of قد + المضارع to give the idea of the future tense is, I thought, a little unusual.

    … and I agree with Cleverzimo. The Urdu example of عن قريب above is unhelpful. Not only that, it is actually somewhat misleading as we don’t need to use this when making the future tense, unlike sa and sawfa for Arabic. We have a completely different system of giving the idea of future actions.
     
    Faylasoof said:
    As the time frame for the future is given by غداً it means you do not need the future particles س and سوف here.

    The imperfect (المضارع) is just unfinished action and for a future connotation we either need to use the prefixes س or سوف or give a future time frame.
    Click to expand...
    So would it be actually wrong or perhaps stylistically inadvisable to use both indicators, or are the particles سـ and سوف simply optional when there's a temporal adverb that clearly sets the action expressed by the مضارع verb in the future?
     
    Last edited:
    When the context indicates that the imperfect (المضارع) is referring to future action, as in your example, then there is no need to add the future particles sa / saufa.

    Is it wrong? I don’t know whether this is considered a grammatical sin but it certainly is redundant and so totally unnecessary, as you might guess.

    Incidentally, I have just looked through some more resources and the probable future action as denoted by the قَد particle + imperfect (to mean “perhaps / possibly” etc.) is the way to express this kind of action in fus7a.

    It is the sort of literature I’ve been reading (almost entirely historical or descriptive) which might explain why I found it unusual. It isn’t. Just haven’t seen this in a long while!
     
    Thank you for your comprehensive answer, Faylasoof.

    I just wanted to make sure, as I've been 'corrected' at least once when I said a sentence with غداً and used the verb in مضارع without سـ or سوف, and was told I of course had to use one of these particles - given that I was referring to the future. :)
     
    Faylasoof said:
    Hello Cherine,

    This is very interesting because a number of grammar books (including Haywood and Nahmad, which teaches the classical language as well as MSA), doesn’t differentiate between the use of sa and sawfa. In fact, it says the former is a contraction of the latter!

    Other grammar books I have say the same.
    Click to expand...

    I've seen this as well, that سـ is a contraction of سوف. However, curiously, in Maltese sa is still used as a future tense marker, however it appears to be a short form of ساير (sejjer in their orthography)! Which would mean it's akin to the formation of رح in other dialects.

    Perhaps سـ is actually a short version of ساير? It would explain why سـ and سوف are not synonymous (e.g., according to Cherine above). If سـ did come from a verb like سار which has a "going" meaning, it would explain the given distinction between near and distant future.

    Just some thoughts. What do the classical grammarians say is the origin of سـَ?
     
    Faylasoof said:
    The imperfect (المضارع) is just unfinished action
    Click to expand...
    I don't want to get into this in this thread (as it would be off-topic, and besides, it's been discussed in previous threads), but I just want to say that not everyone subscribes to this view.
    << The particle قَد+ imperfect tense meaning “perhaps” also denotes a future action or event as possibility:

    Perhaps, he will write قَد یَکتُبُ >>

    What do you all say?
    Click to expand...
    That is correct. When followed by the مضارع, قد means "may" or "might.

    Sigianga said:
    So would it be actually wrong or perhaps stylistically inadvisable to use both indicators, or are the particles سـ and سوف simply optional when there's a temporal adverb that clearly sets the action expressed by the مضارع verb in the future?
    Click to expand...
    It depends on the context. Even if there is an adverb referring to the future, it is not always redundant to use a future particle.
     
    Hi again,
    Faylasoof said:
    I’m very familiar with the Future Perfect where the use of قَد is optional but nevertheless used, e.g.

    Ja3far would have written
    يكون جعفر كتب = يكون جعفر قد كتب
    Click to expand...
    Unfortunately, I myself can't judge the equivalence between the English and the Arabic sentence yet; but as far as I know, "would have" in English is not the future perfect* but rather the so-called third conditional, which is used to refer to conditions in the past that did not happen, for which reason the situation expressed is merely hypothetical (as in your [English] sentence).

    Is this what the Arabic يكون جعفر (قد) كتب expresses?

    If so, is the same construction also possible with سـ\سوف , really referring to the future?:

    سيكون جعفر (قد) كتب = Ja3far will have written ?

    ____________
    *although I suppose that what you wanted to express when you said "future" here was probably "the future perfect tense 'will have' set in the past (-> would)"
     
    Last edited:
    Hi again,

    Could someone please give me one or two examples of contexts where it is not redundant to use a future particle even if there is an adverb referring to the future in the same sentence?
     
    لدي مشكلة كبيرة وعلي أن أحلها. سأتكلم مع المدير غدًا لعلنا نجد حلاً.

    سوف أزور القدس الشهر القادم. هل لديك نصائح بإمكانك إفادتي بها؟

    In these examples, not only are the future particles not redundant, but the sentences would actually sound wrong without them.

    I'm pretty sure it's the same as in German. If you use a future particle where you would use werden in German and omit it where you would use the present tense in German, you should be fine in most - if not all - cases.
    ​
     
    Thanks! Now I know in which direction you were thinking. :)

    It may be similar to German, and considering the respective other language may work as a rule of thumb when deciding whether to use سـ\سوف or werden, respectively, together with a future particle; but it doesn't seem to be the exact same.
    I don't think I'd normally use werden in the context of the second of your example sentences, and the sentence would definitely not sound strange or wrong without it in German.
     
    Last edited:
    Sigianga said:
    Hi again,Unfortunately, I myself can't judge the equivalence between the English and the Arabic sentence yet; but as far as I know, "would have" in English is not the future perfect* but rather the so-called third conditional, which is used to refer to conditions in the pastnot happen that did , for which reason the situation expressed is merely hypothetical (as in your [English] sentence).
    Click to expand...

    In reported speech, the Future Perfect <will have> becomes the Secondary Future perfect <would have>. That is what I recall from my school grammar!

    I think you can search for this on the net yourself, but here is what I mean. Just scroll down to “Future perfect to secondary future perfect tense”.

    Is this what the Arabic يكون جعفر (قد) كتب expresses?

    If so, is the same construction also possible with سـ\سوف , really referring to the future?:

    سيكون جعفر (قد) كتب = Ja3far will have written ?
    Click to expand...

     I don’t recall this! I mean with سـ\سوف. The standard formula being:

    یَکونُ قَد فَعَلَ

    Although some grammar books say that just یَکونُ فَعَلَ conveys the idea of Future Perfect, the use of قَد is frequent.
     
    Hi
    I am very new to this form and seeking your help to understand Arabic. I have seen in this form that many learned persons have very well explained about the formation of the 'future' tense in Arabic. My particular interest is in the use of word قد in the sentence. I have noted many comments in which it was stated قد followed by a verb means may or might and refers the action in the future. However, I want to know will it be treated the same if a verb comes first and then قد i.e. a verb followed by قد

    Thanks
     
    Can a personal pronoun plus an active participle be used in reference to a future event in MSA, as (I believe) is allowed in Arabic dialects? If so, would the event have to take place within the next few days, weeks, or months? Or might it do so even after some months or years?

    For example:

    'Students are writing/will write their exams at the end of April.'

    (الطلّاب حاضرون امتحاناتهم/متقدّمون لامتحاناتهم* في آخر أبريل.)

    'Often John tells me, "I'm resuming/I'll resume my `oud lessons as soon as the pandemic is over."'

    (كثيرا ما "جان" يقول لي, (إنّني مستأنف في دروسي في العود حالما ينتهي الوباء.)

    Thanks in advance.

    *According to this thread:

    To sit an exam
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top Bottom