Does Longman Press make a mistake?

Question

0 I am reading a book published by Longman Publishing Press, in which I come across such a sentence which i think is controdictary with the grammar I learn. I wonder if Longman Press makes a mistake? Could you help me? 02br02br00original: The most recent estimates suggest that by the year 2050, global sea levels 01b00will rise 02b00by an average of 38 cm.02br02br00I think it should be like: The most recent estimates suggest that by the year 2050, global sea levels 01b00will have risen 02b00by an average of 38 cm.02br02br00as I have learnt that sentence with 01u00"by + time in the future" should use a "will have done" structure02u00. I am at a loss.00 0-

Danyoo · Accepted Answer

0Hello Gxiang, welcome to the forum.02br
02br
00I am not familiar with Longman Publishing nor am I an expert grammarian, but I agree with your assessment.02br
02br
00By the time my oldest child is ready to go to college, I will have saved up $1 million dollars in my bank account. Sounds perfectly fine grammatically. Contextually, it's a wishful thinking!0-

Anonymous · Answer

0I too agree with your thought but can't help thinking the original sentence is also acceptable and is used often (at least, l have seen it in that structure a lot of times).     0-

Goodman · Answer

0 01blockquote

01cite10Gxiang12cite10I am reading a book published by Longman Publishing Press, in which I come across such a sentence which i think is controdictary with the grammar I learn. I wonder if Longman Press makes a mistake? Could you help me? 12br
12br
10original: The most recent estimates suggest that by the year 2050, global sea levels 11b10will rise 12b10by an average of 38 cm.12br
12br
10I think it should be like: The most recent estimates suggest that by the year 2050, global sea levels 11b10will have risen 12b10by an average of 38 cm.12br
12br
10as I have learnt that sentence with 11u10"by + time in the future" should use a "will have done" structure12u10. I am at a loss.12blockquote

10Both verions seem to be acceptable. But the first one is more correct with the context. 02br
02br
01i00Hi Gxiang02i02br
02br
01i00There are times we see future perfect tense used but if the context is not appropriate, the tone may sound odd. 02i02br
02br
01i00I can say” 00I01font00 would 02font02i01font00have saved 02font01i00enough money to open my business if I wasn’t being wasteful with my money”. 00 02i02br
02br
01i00This is a conditional context and note “would” was used, not “will”. 02i00I 01font00will have arri02font00ved00 LA by the time she is 02br
02br
01i00awakened. In this context, you are saying you are so sure of the time that you are willing to use "will have 02i02br
02br
01i00arrived" and it sounds fine. But I will just use a simple future tense to get my point across. 00 00Although it’s not 02i02br
02br
01i00wrong to use “will have arrived” for your question, it’s not common.02i02br
02br
01i02i02br
02br
01i00I am certain the “Longman” publisher did not make a mistake. “will rise” is correct. Often times we try to make our writing so perfectly grammatically correct that we make it sound clumsy and odd. 00 02i02br
02br
01i02i02br
02br
01i02i0-

MrPedantic · Answer

0I would tend towards either:02br
02br
001. The most recent estimates suggest that between now and the year 2050, global sea levels 01b00will rise 02b00by an average of 38 cm.02br
02br
00or:02br
02br
002. The most recent estimates suggest that by the year 2050, global sea levels 01b00will have risen 02b00by an average of 38 cm.02br
02br
00MrP0-

Does Longman Press make a mistake?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions