0
New2grammar Posted 18 years ago
Grammar

I'll have to

0Sandy, my lawyer is here. [I'll/I] have to call you back. 02br
02br
00Are both choices correct? Is there any difference?02br
02br
00Thanks!0-
  

Top answer

0 Hi N2G02br 00I can't see any real difference. Both are used a lot. I would use the future tense since the calling will take place at a later stage.

— Cool Breeze

  • 0 Hi N2G02br 00I can't see any real difference.
  • Both are used a lot.
  • I would use the future tense since the calling will take place at a later stage.
  • 02br 02br 00CB 0-
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

5 Answers
0
0 Hi N2G02br
00I can't see any real difference. Both are used a lot. I would use the future tense since the calling will take place at a later stage. If you say: 01i00I 01b00must02b00 call you back,02i00 you get rid of the tense issue.02br
02br
00CB 0-
0
0
0 Both are correct, but the one with 01i00I'll02i00 is better because it more clearly relates a future obligation to the appearance of the lawyer. Without the 01i00'll 02i00the obligation might have existed whether the lawyer showed up or not. The listener can figure out that there 01u00is02u00 a connection, of course, but it
0
0
0 For me, the version with "I have to call you back" sounds more flustered than "I'll have to call you back".02br
02br
00Is that true for anyone else?02br
02br
00MrP 0-
0
0
0 01blockquote
01cite10MrPedantic12cite10flustered12blockquote
10 I hadn't thought about it that way, but now that you mention it ...02br
00Yes, it has an immediacy (because of present tense) that the future doesn't have, so the version with the future sounds more reasoned, calmer, I suppose.02br
00CJ 0-
0
0
0Thanks Mr.P and CalifJim0-
0

Related Questions