The sequence of tenses

Question

1.You will see the puzzle solved after a while.

2.You will see that the puzzle has been solved after a while.
3.You will see the puzzle will have been solved after a while.
4.You will see the puzzle will be solved after a while.

As in #2, even though a subordinate clause is not a adverbial clause, Why should I rephrase #1 like #2?
I thought I should rephrase like #3 or #4. Why can't I rephrase #1 like #3 or #4?

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

These four sentences are used to describe slightly different versions of the same situation. For example:

A and B are watching a video of a man solving a puzzle. A is talking to B:

1. A: This is a very difficult puzzle that has stumped the best mathematicians in the world. But this guy is good. You will see the puzzle solved after a while. (That is, the video will show the man working on the puzzle and solving it - everything captured on the video smoothly, with no gaps and no real doubt about the outcome.)

2. A: The video is erratic. There are gaps in it and the man leaves the picture at times. But you will see that the puzzle has been solved after a while.

3. A: Before I run the video, I should say that there was some doubt about whether the man could solve the puzzle. But never fear, you will see the puzzle will have been solved after a while.

4. B: I don't believe the guy can solve it. He's struggling.

A: Don't worry. You will see, the puzzle will be solved after a while. (There needs to be a comma after "see.")

Park sang joon · Answer

Thank you, No Name One, for your concrete answer.
But I can't understand the difference of the nuance among your examples.

Anonymous2. A: The video is erratic. There are gaps in it and the man leaves the picture at times. But you will see that the puzzle has been solved after a while.

What dose being used a present perfect tense have to do with there being gaps in the video?

Anonymous 4. B: I don't believe the guy can solve it. He's struggling. A: Don't worry. You will see, the puzzle will be solved after a while. (There needs to be a comma after "see.")

Why must the comma be used?

Park sang joon · Answer

I want to revive this thread.

GPY · Answer

park sang joonWhat dose being used a present perfect tense have to do with there being gaps in the video?

I think Anon's point is that you don't actually see the puzzle being solved -- or at least not the whole process -- but afterwards you see that it has been solved.

Park sang joon · Answer

Thank you, GPY, for your answer.
Then must I use those tenses respectfully with clear distinctions in the cases like my examples?

GPY · Answer

park sang joonThank you, GPY, for your answer.Then must I use those tenses respectfully with clear distinctions in the cases like my examples?

It is a hard-to-answer and in places hair-splitting question. My first thought on reading the sentences was to wonder why the word "that" is included in (2) but not in (3) and (4), and whether this is meant to be significant. If you mean "You will see that ..." then it is best to include "that", otherwise a doubt can arise about whether (3) and (4) are just badly punctuated and should have a dash or something after "You will see". (4) seems particularly awkward without "that" (or different punctuation).

(3) seems to me to be a more convoluted way of saying (2), although only (2) could cover the case when the puzzle has already been solved but you will have to wait to see that.

In all cases it is ambiguous whether "after a while" modifies "see" or "solved".

Park sang joon · Answer

GPY In all cases it is ambiguous whether "after a while" modifies "see" or "solved".

I' will rephrase my examples like the followings:
1.You will see the puzzle solved after a while.
2.You will see after a while that the puzzle has been solved.
3.You will see after a while that the puzzle will have been solved.
4.You will see after a while that the puzzle will be solved.

GPY If you mean "You will see that ..." then it is best to include "that", otherwise a doubt can arise about whether (3) and (4) are just badly punctuated and should have a dash or something after "You will see".

I don't know; isn't it that we see that 'that' is of course omitted?

GPY(3) seems to me to be a more convoluted way of saying (2), although only (2) could cover the case when the puzzle has already been solved but you will have to wait to see that.

I am none the wiser for your explanation; please, let me know what nuance every example has respectively.

GPY · Answer

park sang joonI don't know; isn't it that we see that 'that' is of course omitted?

It would normally be assumed (though I don't think Anon did above). However, when some sentences for comparison have "that" and others don't, it seems as if this was done intentionally to create a difference. Another issue is that it's easy to start out reading "You will see the puzzle ..." as if "the puzzle" is the object of "see". Then, when you realise that this interpretation doesn't work, you have to backtrack. This makes these sentences awkward to read without "that".

park sang joonI am none the wiser for your explanation; please, let me know what nuance every example has respectively.

Sorry, that question is unappealing for me. It is an awkward kind of hair-splitting question. You could ask ten people and get ten different answers. Many people would probably just scratch their heads.

Park sang joon · Answer

Thank you, GPY, your advice and candid reply.

I'd like to ask only one more thing.
[You will see that the puzzle has been solved after a while.]
In the sentence above, why is it possible that the main clause and a subordinate clause don't agree with each other about the tense?

GPY · Answer

At the time you see it, it has been solved.

The sequence of tenses

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions