Difference between “va faire” and “ira faire”Quel futur doit-on utiliser quand on offre de faire quelque chose ?What is the difference between “Sa fierté aurait-elle été blessée ?” and “Sa fierté aura-t-elle été blessée ?”?
What does it mean to move a single flight control to its full deflection?
How to prevent a hosting company from accessing a VM's encryption keys?
Line Feed in monospace font - Macro
Pen test results for web application include a file from a forbidden directory that is not even used or referenced
Why doesn't Starship have four landing legs?
I feel cheated on by my new employer, does this sound right? Offered salary < advertised salary
What does "-1" represent in the value range for unsigned int and signed int?
Spicing up a moment of peace
Can two aircraft stay on the same runway at the same time?
What should be done with the carbon when using magic to get oxygen from carbon dioxide?
Do application leftovers have any impact on performance?
What ways are there to "PEEK" memory sections in (different) BASIC(s)
Should I use the words "pyromancy" and "necromancy" even if they don't mean what people think they do?
Fantasy Macro Economics: What would Merfolk trade for?
Did ancient peoples ever hide their treasure behind puzzles?
How can I reply to people who accuse me of putting people out of work?
Is there an in-universe explanation given to the senior Imperial Navy Officers as to why Darth Vader serves Emperor Palpatine?
Why is there not a willingness from the world to step in between Pakistan and India?
What is the sound/audio equivalent of "unsightly"?
How can I fix cracks between the bathtub and the wall surround?
Drawing probabilities on a simplex in TikZ
Did the Apollo Guidance Computer really use 60% of the world's ICs in 1963?
Why didn't Doc believe Marty was from the future?
Count the number of triangles
Difference between “va faire” and “ira faire”
Quel futur doit-on utiliser quand on offre de faire quelque chose ?What is the difference between “Sa fierté aurait-elle été blessée ?” and “Sa fierté aura-t-elle été blessée ?”?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
Is there any difference between "va faire" and "ira faire" ? Example:
- Il va faire du cerf-volant demain.
- Il ira faire du cerf-volant demain.
futur temps-composés futur-proche
edited Aug 16 at 23:39
Maroon
8684 silver badges19 bronze badges
asked Aug 16 at 22:18
Alan EvangelistaAlan Evangelista
55310 bronze badges
add a comment |
Is there any difference between "va faire" and "ira faire" ? Example:
- Il va faire du cerf-volant demain.
- Il ira faire du cerf-volant demain.
futur temps-composés futur-proche
edited Aug 16 at 23:39
Maroon
8684 silver badges19 bronze badges
asked Aug 16 at 22:18
Alan EvangelistaAlan Evangelista
55310 bronze badges
1
The sample sentences in the answer written by @Eauquidort both make sense to me. However, I can't imagine a situation in which your second sentence, Il ira faire du cerf-volant demain would make sense. I agree with Eau qui dort that there is a difference between the two expressions, with one involving movement and the other not, but in the case of faire du cerf-volant there is implicit movement anyway, as this isn't something you would do in your back yard! In other words, the movement is already included in the action. So, there would never be a need for "ira" in this particular example.
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:26
Even if "ira" is not required in my sentence because the movement is already implicit, I assume it still can be used for emphasis ?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 17 at 19:55
I'm not sure what you mean by emphasis. Maybe you mean that it is emphasizing the going -- the fact that the boy will be going elsewhere for the activity. If so, then yes. // Your choice of verbs for talking about the future is actually quite simple. You can either use "va" with the verb in question (equivalent to he's going to take his make-up test tomorrow) or you can conjugate the verb in question in the future tense (equivalent to he will take the make-up test tomorrow). The third option you came up with, where you try to do both things (a form of aller plus a ...
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 23:23
... conjugation in the future tense) is a bit weird. Now, if you want to ask about the difference between the two valid options, that would be a separate question. If it hasn't been asked yet (sorry, I have not looked to see if it has), that would be an interesting question, I think.
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 23:29
Yes, I meant emphasis on the movement. Thanks! I am well aware of the future forms of French, the point here was understanding the nuance of using "ira faire qqch" and it is now clear.
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 19 at 4:25
add a comment |
Is there any difference between "va faire" and "ira faire" ? Example:
- Il va faire du cerf-volant demain.
- Il ira faire du cerf-volant demain.
futur temps-composés futur-proche
edited Aug 16 at 23:39
Maroon
8684 silver badges19 bronze badges
asked Aug 16 at 22:18
Alan EvangelistaAlan Evangelista
55310 bronze badges
Is there any difference between "va faire" and "ira faire" ? Example:
- Il va faire du cerf-volant demain.
- Il ira faire du cerf-volant demain.
futur temps-composés futur-proche
futur temps-composés futur-proche
edited Aug 16 at 23:39
Maroon
8684 silver badges19 bronze badges
asked Aug 16 at 22:18
Alan EvangelistaAlan Evangelista
55310 bronze badges
edited Aug 16 at 23:39
Maroon
8684 silver badges19 bronze badges
asked Aug 16 at 22:18
Alan EvangelistaAlan Evangelista
55310 bronze badges
edited Aug 16 at 23:39
Maroon
8684 silver badges19 bronze badges
edited Aug 16 at 23:39
Maroon
8684 silver badges19 bronze badges
edited Aug 16 at 23:39
Maroon
8684 silver badges19 bronze badges
8684 silver badges19 bronze badges
asked Aug 16 at 22:18
Alan EvangelistaAlan Evangelista
55310 bronze badges
asked Aug 16 at 22:18
Alan EvangelistaAlan Evangelista
55310 bronze badges
asked Aug 16 at 22:18
Alan EvangelistaAlan Evangelista
55310 bronze badges
55310 bronze badges
1
The sample sentences in the answer written by @Eauquidort both make sense to me. However, I can't imagine a situation in which your second sentence, Il ira faire du cerf-volant demain would make sense. I agree with Eau qui dort that there is a difference between the two expressions, with one involving movement and the other not, but in the case of faire du cerf-volant there is implicit movement anyway, as this isn't something you would do in your back yard! In other words, the movement is already included in the action. So, there would never be a need for "ira" in this particular example.
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:26
Even if "ira" is not required in my sentence because the movement is already implicit, I assume it still can be used for emphasis ?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 17 at 19:55
I'm not sure what you mean by emphasis. Maybe you mean that it is emphasizing the going -- the fact that the boy will be going elsewhere for the activity. If so, then yes. // Your choice of verbs for talking about the future is actually quite simple. You can either use "va" with the verb in question (equivalent to he's going to take his make-up test tomorrow) or you can conjugate the verb in question in the future tense (equivalent to he will take the make-up test tomorrow). The third option you came up with, where you try to do both things (a form of aller plus a ...
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 23:23
... conjugation in the future tense) is a bit weird. Now, if you want to ask about the difference between the two valid options, that would be a separate question. If it hasn't been asked yet (sorry, I have not looked to see if it has), that would be an interesting question, I think.
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 23:29
Yes, I meant emphasis on the movement. Thanks! I am well aware of the future forms of French, the point here was understanding the nuance of using "ira faire qqch" and it is now clear.
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 19 at 4:25
add a comment |
1
The sample sentences in the answer written by @Eauquidort both make sense to me. However, I can't imagine a situation in which your second sentence, Il ira faire du cerf-volant demain would make sense. I agree with Eau qui dort that there is a difference between the two expressions, with one involving movement and the other not, but in the case of faire du cerf-volant there is implicit movement anyway, as this isn't something you would do in your back yard! In other words, the movement is already included in the action. So, there would never be a need for "ira" in this particular example.
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:26
Even if "ira" is not required in my sentence because the movement is already implicit, I assume it still can be used for emphasis ?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 17 at 19:55
I'm not sure what you mean by emphasis. Maybe you mean that it is emphasizing the going -- the fact that the boy will be going elsewhere for the activity. If so, then yes. // Your choice of verbs for talking about the future is actually quite simple. You can either use "va" with the verb in question (equivalent to he's going to take his make-up test tomorrow) or you can conjugate the verb in question in the future tense (equivalent to he will take the make-up test tomorrow). The third option you came up with, where you try to do both things (a form of aller plus a ...
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 23:23
... conjugation in the future tense) is a bit weird. Now, if you want to ask about the difference between the two valid options, that would be a separate question. If it hasn't been asked yet (sorry, I have not looked to see if it has), that would be an interesting question, I think.
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 23:29
Yes, I meant emphasis on the movement. Thanks! I am well aware of the future forms of French, the point here was understanding the nuance of using "ira faire qqch" and it is now clear.
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 19 at 4:25
1
1
The sample sentences in the answer written by @Eauquidort both make sense to me. However, I can't imagine a situation in which your second sentence, Il ira faire du cerf-volant demain would make sense. I agree with Eau qui dort that there is a difference between the two expressions, with one involving movement and the other not, but in the case of faire du cerf-volant there is implicit movement anyway, as this isn't something you would do in your back yard! In other words, the movement is already included in the action. So, there would never be a need for "ira" in this particular example.
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:26
The sample sentences in the answer written by @Eauquidort both make sense to me. However, I can't imagine a situation in which your second sentence, Il ira faire du cerf-volant demain would make sense. I agree with Eau qui dort that there is a difference between the two expressions, with one involving movement and the other not, but in the case of faire du cerf-volant there is implicit movement anyway, as this isn't something you would do in your back yard! In other words, the movement is already included in the action. So, there would never be a need for "ira" in this particular example.
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:26
Even if "ira" is not required in my sentence because the movement is already implicit, I assume it still can be used for emphasis ?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 17 at 19:55
Even if "ira" is not required in my sentence because the movement is already implicit, I assume it still can be used for emphasis ?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 17 at 19:55
I'm not sure what you mean by emphasis. Maybe you mean that it is emphasizing the going -- the fact that the boy will be going elsewhere for the activity. If so, then yes. // Your choice of verbs for talking about the future is actually quite simple. You can either use "va" with the verb in question (equivalent to he's going to take his make-up test tomorrow) or you can conjugate the verb in question in the future tense (equivalent to he will take the make-up test tomorrow). The third option you came up with, where you try to do both things (a form of aller plus a ...
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 23:23
I'm not sure what you mean by emphasis. Maybe you mean that it is emphasizing the going -- the fact that the boy will be going elsewhere for the activity. If so, then yes. // Your choice of verbs for talking about the future is actually quite simple. You can either use "va" with the verb in question (equivalent to he's going to take his make-up test tomorrow) or you can conjugate the verb in question in the future tense (equivalent to he will take the make-up test tomorrow). The third option you came up with, where you try to do both things (a form of aller plus a ...
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 23:23
... conjugation in the future tense) is a bit weird. Now, if you want to ask about the difference between the two valid options, that would be a separate question. If it hasn't been asked yet (sorry, I have not looked to see if it has), that would be an interesting question, I think.
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 23:29
... conjugation in the future tense) is a bit weird. Now, if you want to ask about the difference between the two valid options, that would be a separate question. If it hasn't been asked yet (sorry, I have not looked to see if it has), that would be an interesting question, I think.
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 23:29
Yes, I meant emphasis on the movement. Thanks! I am well aware of the future forms of French, the point here was understanding the nuance of using "ira faire qqch" and it is now clear.
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 19 at 4:25
Yes, I meant emphasis on the movement. Thanks! I am well aware of the future forms of French, the point here was understanding the nuance of using "ira faire qqch" and it is now clear.
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 19 at 4:25
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
"Ira" necessitates that some movement will happen (in other words, it's a verb of movement in the future tense), while "va" doesn't.
Take a sentence like "Elle ira travailler chez elle demain". It only makes sense if she's not currently at home. The same sentence with "va" wouldn't have the same truth conditionals, it's fine to use whether she's already home or not. In order to have an equivalent sentence using "va", youd need to use "Elle va aller travailler chez elle demain"
answered Aug 16 at 22:47
Eau qui dortEau qui dort
5,5391 gold badge9 silver badges19 bronze badges
How could I translate the 2nd sentence to English to express the same meaning?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 16 at 23:45
He will go and play flying-deer ;-)
– jlliagre
Aug 17 at 4:42
1
@AlanEvangelista - She's going to her [other?] house tomorrow to do some work. (That's not a literal word-for-word translation -- it's a functional translation that conveys the same meaning as the given sentence.) Keep in mind that a simple future would be Elle travaillera chez elle demain. So, "Elle va aller travailler" has to be different from "She will work."
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:20
Oh, I just realized you were maybe requesting a translation of the second sentence in the original post. Sorry. If that is the case: the second sentence in your original post would not be authentic, so no point in translating it.
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:30
1
@AlanEvangelista In English it's similar to the phrasal verb "going off to" or "going out to". "She's going to work tomorrow" vs "she's going off to work tomorrow." The first is pure grammar and the second indicates physical motion.
– hunter
Aug 17 at 16:12
|
show 5 more comments
There is no great difference since the respective tenses are two future tenses, the "futur immédiat" and the "future simple", but that is true only as far as the action per se is concerned.
There can be a subtle difference; in the first case you are dealing with a matter of fact statement. In the second you can stress « demain » and then you are saying that he is not going to do it now or at another time, you are saying that some other time than tomorrow that has been considered will not do.
Here is another subtle difference; the "future simple" can be used for a sarcastic effect. The pronunciation, of course, is crucial in the conveying of the sarcasm and I will not go into that as the discussion is beyond my means, but let it be said that the "futur immédiat" is not proper for this purpose. The sarcasm is to the effect that such a thing is a trivial occupation in comparison to something else that is in question.
- — Pourquoi ne pas le laisser lire ses Mickey Mouse et ses Donald Duck ?
— Quand son instituteur l'interrogera sur ses leçon il lui récitera Mickey Mouse !
"il va lui réciter" is not proper, but it must be said again, the intonation is very important
As the first form is used for matter of fact statements it is used much more than the second (ngram).
An important difference lies in what prompted someone answering with either one of those forms : if the reply is meant to tell someone that the boy/man will not be able to do something else in reason of his playing with a kite, you must use the form in the "futur immédiat"; the other one does not convey the message idiomatically.
answered Aug 16 at 22:48
LPHLPH
16.7k1 gold badge8 silver badges35 bronze badges
1
I think that any tense can express sarcasm. Could you give more details of how the sentence with the Futur Simple may be used sarcastically (and why the sentence with the Futur Proche cannot achieve the same effect) ?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 16 at 23:06
@AlanEvangelista True, sarcasm can be embodied in any form, provided, among other things, that you have at your command the proper intonations; however, the case I mention is a tipyfied instance of that, it's dedicated to that particular type of sarcasm I mention and not any sort you might have in mind. There are other points, besides the highlighting of triviality; it can be derisiveness, unreasonableness, etc. (triviality being merely typical).
– LPH
Aug 16 at 23:18
3
This andwer is missing the real difference between the sentences and the "sarcastic" part is nonsensical.
– jlliagre
Aug 17 at 4:54
4
Plainly wrong, the answer should be deleted.
– petitrien
Aug 17 at 5:36
1
@LPH. None so deaf…
– petitrien
Aug 17 at 8:56
|
show 6 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "299"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ffrench.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38037%2fdifference-between-va-faire-and-ira-faire%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
"Ira" necessitates that some movement will happen (in other words, it's a verb of movement in the future tense), while "va" doesn't.
Take a sentence like "Elle ira travailler chez elle demain". It only makes sense if she's not currently at home. The same sentence with "va" wouldn't have the same truth conditionals, it's fine to use whether she's already home or not. In order to have an equivalent sentence using "va", youd need to use "Elle va aller travailler chez elle demain"
answered Aug 16 at 22:47
Eau qui dortEau qui dort
5,5391 gold badge9 silver badges19 bronze badges
How could I translate the 2nd sentence to English to express the same meaning?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 16 at 23:45
He will go and play flying-deer ;-)
– jlliagre
Aug 17 at 4:42
1
@AlanEvangelista - She's going to her [other?] house tomorrow to do some work. (That's not a literal word-for-word translation -- it's a functional translation that conveys the same meaning as the given sentence.) Keep in mind that a simple future would be Elle travaillera chez elle demain. So, "Elle va aller travailler" has to be different from "She will work."
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:20
Oh, I just realized you were maybe requesting a translation of the second sentence in the original post. Sorry. If that is the case: the second sentence in your original post would not be authentic, so no point in translating it.
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:30
1
@AlanEvangelista In English it's similar to the phrasal verb "going off to" or "going out to". "She's going to work tomorrow" vs "she's going off to work tomorrow." The first is pure grammar and the second indicates physical motion.
– hunter
Aug 17 at 16:12
|
show 5 more comments
"Ira" necessitates that some movement will happen (in other words, it's a verb of movement in the future tense), while "va" doesn't.
Take a sentence like "Elle ira travailler chez elle demain". It only makes sense if she's not currently at home. The same sentence with "va" wouldn't have the same truth conditionals, it's fine to use whether she's already home or not. In order to have an equivalent sentence using "va", youd need to use "Elle va aller travailler chez elle demain"
answered Aug 16 at 22:47
Eau qui dortEau qui dort
5,5391 gold badge9 silver badges19 bronze badges
How could I translate the 2nd sentence to English to express the same meaning?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 16 at 23:45
He will go and play flying-deer ;-)
– jlliagre
Aug 17 at 4:42
1
@AlanEvangelista - She's going to her [other?] house tomorrow to do some work. (That's not a literal word-for-word translation -- it's a functional translation that conveys the same meaning as the given sentence.) Keep in mind that a simple future would be Elle travaillera chez elle demain. So, "Elle va aller travailler" has to be different from "She will work."
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:20
Oh, I just realized you were maybe requesting a translation of the second sentence in the original post. Sorry. If that is the case: the second sentence in your original post would not be authentic, so no point in translating it.
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:30
1
@AlanEvangelista In English it's similar to the phrasal verb "going off to" or "going out to". "She's going to work tomorrow" vs "she's going off to work tomorrow." The first is pure grammar and the second indicates physical motion.
– hunter
Aug 17 at 16:12
|
show 5 more comments
"Ira" necessitates that some movement will happen (in other words, it's a verb of movement in the future tense), while "va" doesn't.
Take a sentence like "Elle ira travailler chez elle demain". It only makes sense if she's not currently at home. The same sentence with "va" wouldn't have the same truth conditionals, it's fine to use whether she's already home or not. In order to have an equivalent sentence using "va", youd need to use "Elle va aller travailler chez elle demain"
answered Aug 16 at 22:47
Eau qui dortEau qui dort
5,5391 gold badge9 silver badges19 bronze badges
"Ira" necessitates that some movement will happen (in other words, it's a verb of movement in the future tense), while "va" doesn't.
Take a sentence like "Elle ira travailler chez elle demain". It only makes sense if she's not currently at home. The same sentence with "va" wouldn't have the same truth conditionals, it's fine to use whether she's already home or not. In order to have an equivalent sentence using "va", youd need to use "Elle va aller travailler chez elle demain"
answered Aug 16 at 22:47
Eau qui dortEau qui dort
5,5391 gold badge9 silver badges19 bronze badges
answered Aug 16 at 22:47
Eau qui dortEau qui dort
5,5391 gold badge9 silver badges19 bronze badges
answered Aug 16 at 22:47
Eau qui dortEau qui dort
5,5391 gold badge9 silver badges19 bronze badges
answered Aug 16 at 22:47
Eau qui dortEau qui dort
5,5391 gold badge9 silver badges19 bronze badges
5,5391 gold badge9 silver badges19 bronze badges
How could I translate the 2nd sentence to English to express the same meaning?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 16 at 23:45
He will go and play flying-deer ;-)
– jlliagre
Aug 17 at 4:42
1
@AlanEvangelista - She's going to her [other?] house tomorrow to do some work. (That's not a literal word-for-word translation -- it's a functional translation that conveys the same meaning as the given sentence.) Keep in mind that a simple future would be Elle travaillera chez elle demain. So, "Elle va aller travailler" has to be different from "She will work."
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:20
Oh, I just realized you were maybe requesting a translation of the second sentence in the original post. Sorry. If that is the case: the second sentence in your original post would not be authentic, so no point in translating it.
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:30
1
@AlanEvangelista In English it's similar to the phrasal verb "going off to" or "going out to". "She's going to work tomorrow" vs "she's going off to work tomorrow." The first is pure grammar and the second indicates physical motion.
– hunter
Aug 17 at 16:12
|
show 5 more comments
How could I translate the 2nd sentence to English to express the same meaning?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 16 at 23:45
He will go and play flying-deer ;-)
– jlliagre
Aug 17 at 4:42
1
@AlanEvangelista - She's going to her [other?] house tomorrow to do some work. (That's not a literal word-for-word translation -- it's a functional translation that conveys the same meaning as the given sentence.) Keep in mind that a simple future would be Elle travaillera chez elle demain. So, "Elle va aller travailler" has to be different from "She will work."
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:20
Oh, I just realized you were maybe requesting a translation of the second sentence in the original post. Sorry. If that is the case: the second sentence in your original post would not be authentic, so no point in translating it.
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:30
1
@AlanEvangelista In English it's similar to the phrasal verb "going off to" or "going out to". "She's going to work tomorrow" vs "she's going off to work tomorrow." The first is pure grammar and the second indicates physical motion.
– hunter
Aug 17 at 16:12
How could I translate the 2nd sentence to English to express the same meaning?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 16 at 23:45
How could I translate the 2nd sentence to English to express the same meaning?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 16 at 23:45
He will go and play flying-deer ;-)
– jlliagre
Aug 17 at 4:42
He will go and play flying-deer ;-)
– jlliagre
Aug 17 at 4:42
1
1
@AlanEvangelista - She's going to her [other?] house tomorrow to do some work. (That's not a literal word-for-word translation -- it's a functional translation that conveys the same meaning as the given sentence.) Keep in mind that a simple future would be Elle travaillera chez elle demain. So, "Elle va aller travailler" has to be different from "She will work."
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:20
@AlanEvangelista - She's going to her [other?] house tomorrow to do some work. (That's not a literal word-for-word translation -- it's a functional translation that conveys the same meaning as the given sentence.) Keep in mind that a simple future would be Elle travaillera chez elle demain. So, "Elle va aller travailler" has to be different from "She will work."
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:20
Oh, I just realized you were maybe requesting a translation of the second sentence in the original post. Sorry. If that is the case: the second sentence in your original post would not be authentic, so no point in translating it.
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:30
Oh, I just realized you were maybe requesting a translation of the second sentence in the original post. Sorry. If that is the case: the second sentence in your original post would not be authentic, so no point in translating it.
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:30
1
1
@AlanEvangelista In English it's similar to the phrasal verb "going off to" or "going out to". "She's going to work tomorrow" vs "she's going off to work tomorrow." The first is pure grammar and the second indicates physical motion.
– hunter
Aug 17 at 16:12
@AlanEvangelista In English it's similar to the phrasal verb "going off to" or "going out to". "She's going to work tomorrow" vs "she's going off to work tomorrow." The first is pure grammar and the second indicates physical motion.
– hunter
Aug 17 at 16:12
|
show 5 more comments
There is no great difference since the respective tenses are two future tenses, the "futur immédiat" and the "future simple", but that is true only as far as the action per se is concerned.
There can be a subtle difference; in the first case you are dealing with a matter of fact statement. In the second you can stress « demain » and then you are saying that he is not going to do it now or at another time, you are saying that some other time than tomorrow that has been considered will not do.
Here is another subtle difference; the "future simple" can be used for a sarcastic effect. The pronunciation, of course, is crucial in the conveying of the sarcasm and I will not go into that as the discussion is beyond my means, but let it be said that the "futur immédiat" is not proper for this purpose. The sarcasm is to the effect that such a thing is a trivial occupation in comparison to something else that is in question.
- — Pourquoi ne pas le laisser lire ses Mickey Mouse et ses Donald Duck ?
— Quand son instituteur l'interrogera sur ses leçon il lui récitera Mickey Mouse !
"il va lui réciter" is not proper, but it must be said again, the intonation is very important
As the first form is used for matter of fact statements it is used much more than the second (ngram).
An important difference lies in what prompted someone answering with either one of those forms : if the reply is meant to tell someone that the boy/man will not be able to do something else in reason of his playing with a kite, you must use the form in the "futur immédiat"; the other one does not convey the message idiomatically.
answered Aug 16 at 22:48
LPHLPH
16.7k1 gold badge8 silver badges35 bronze badges
1
I think that any tense can express sarcasm. Could you give more details of how the sentence with the Futur Simple may be used sarcastically (and why the sentence with the Futur Proche cannot achieve the same effect) ?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 16 at 23:06
@AlanEvangelista True, sarcasm can be embodied in any form, provided, among other things, that you have at your command the proper intonations; however, the case I mention is a tipyfied instance of that, it's dedicated to that particular type of sarcasm I mention and not any sort you might have in mind. There are other points, besides the highlighting of triviality; it can be derisiveness, unreasonableness, etc. (triviality being merely typical).
– LPH
Aug 16 at 23:18
3
This andwer is missing the real difference between the sentences and the "sarcastic" part is nonsensical.
– jlliagre
Aug 17 at 4:54
4
Plainly wrong, the answer should be deleted.
– petitrien
Aug 17 at 5:36
1
@LPH. None so deaf…
– petitrien
Aug 17 at 8:56
|
show 6 more comments
There is no great difference since the respective tenses are two future tenses, the "futur immédiat" and the "future simple", but that is true only as far as the action per se is concerned.
There can be a subtle difference; in the first case you are dealing with a matter of fact statement. In the second you can stress « demain » and then you are saying that he is not going to do it now or at another time, you are saying that some other time than tomorrow that has been considered will not do.
Here is another subtle difference; the "future simple" can be used for a sarcastic effect. The pronunciation, of course, is crucial in the conveying of the sarcasm and I will not go into that as the discussion is beyond my means, but let it be said that the "futur immédiat" is not proper for this purpose. The sarcasm is to the effect that such a thing is a trivial occupation in comparison to something else that is in question.
- — Pourquoi ne pas le laisser lire ses Mickey Mouse et ses Donald Duck ?
— Quand son instituteur l'interrogera sur ses leçon il lui récitera Mickey Mouse !
"il va lui réciter" is not proper, but it must be said again, the intonation is very important
As the first form is used for matter of fact statements it is used much more than the second (ngram).
An important difference lies in what prompted someone answering with either one of those forms : if the reply is meant to tell someone that the boy/man will not be able to do something else in reason of his playing with a kite, you must use the form in the "futur immédiat"; the other one does not convey the message idiomatically.
answered Aug 16 at 22:48
LPHLPH
16.7k1 gold badge8 silver badges35 bronze badges
1
I think that any tense can express sarcasm. Could you give more details of how the sentence with the Futur Simple may be used sarcastically (and why the sentence with the Futur Proche cannot achieve the same effect) ?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 16 at 23:06
@AlanEvangelista True, sarcasm can be embodied in any form, provided, among other things, that you have at your command the proper intonations; however, the case I mention is a tipyfied instance of that, it's dedicated to that particular type of sarcasm I mention and not any sort you might have in mind. There are other points, besides the highlighting of triviality; it can be derisiveness, unreasonableness, etc. (triviality being merely typical).
– LPH
Aug 16 at 23:18
3
This andwer is missing the real difference between the sentences and the "sarcastic" part is nonsensical.
– jlliagre
Aug 17 at 4:54
4
Plainly wrong, the answer should be deleted.
– petitrien
Aug 17 at 5:36
1
@LPH. None so deaf…
– petitrien
Aug 17 at 8:56
|
show 6 more comments
There is no great difference since the respective tenses are two future tenses, the "futur immédiat" and the "future simple", but that is true only as far as the action per se is concerned.
There can be a subtle difference; in the first case you are dealing with a matter of fact statement. In the second you can stress « demain » and then you are saying that he is not going to do it now or at another time, you are saying that some other time than tomorrow that has been considered will not do.
Here is another subtle difference; the "future simple" can be used for a sarcastic effect. The pronunciation, of course, is crucial in the conveying of the sarcasm and I will not go into that as the discussion is beyond my means, but let it be said that the "futur immédiat" is not proper for this purpose. The sarcasm is to the effect that such a thing is a trivial occupation in comparison to something else that is in question.
- — Pourquoi ne pas le laisser lire ses Mickey Mouse et ses Donald Duck ?
— Quand son instituteur l'interrogera sur ses leçon il lui récitera Mickey Mouse !
"il va lui réciter" is not proper, but it must be said again, the intonation is very important
As the first form is used for matter of fact statements it is used much more than the second (ngram).
An important difference lies in what prompted someone answering with either one of those forms : if the reply is meant to tell someone that the boy/man will not be able to do something else in reason of his playing with a kite, you must use the form in the "futur immédiat"; the other one does not convey the message idiomatically.
answered Aug 16 at 22:48
LPHLPH
16.7k1 gold badge8 silver badges35 bronze badges
There is no great difference since the respective tenses are two future tenses, the "futur immédiat" and the "future simple", but that is true only as far as the action per se is concerned.
There can be a subtle difference; in the first case you are dealing with a matter of fact statement. In the second you can stress « demain » and then you are saying that he is not going to do it now or at another time, you are saying that some other time than tomorrow that has been considered will not do.
Here is another subtle difference; the "future simple" can be used for a sarcastic effect. The pronunciation, of course, is crucial in the conveying of the sarcasm and I will not go into that as the discussion is beyond my means, but let it be said that the "futur immédiat" is not proper for this purpose. The sarcasm is to the effect that such a thing is a trivial occupation in comparison to something else that is in question.
- — Pourquoi ne pas le laisser lire ses Mickey Mouse et ses Donald Duck ?
— Quand son instituteur l'interrogera sur ses leçon il lui récitera Mickey Mouse !
"il va lui réciter" is not proper, but it must be said again, the intonation is very important
As the first form is used for matter of fact statements it is used much more than the second (ngram).
An important difference lies in what prompted someone answering with either one of those forms : if the reply is meant to tell someone that the boy/man will not be able to do something else in reason of his playing with a kite, you must use the form in the "futur immédiat"; the other one does not convey the message idiomatically.
answered Aug 16 at 22:48
LPHLPH
16.7k1 gold badge8 silver badges35 bronze badges
edited Aug 16 at 23:27
answered Aug 16 at 22:48
LPHLPH
16.7k1 gold badge8 silver badges35 bronze badges
answered Aug 16 at 22:48
LPHLPH
16.7k1 gold badge8 silver badges35 bronze badges
answered Aug 16 at 22:48
LPHLPH
16.7k1 gold badge8 silver badges35 bronze badges
16.7k1 gold badge8 silver badges35 bronze badges
1
I think that any tense can express sarcasm. Could you give more details of how the sentence with the Futur Simple may be used sarcastically (and why the sentence with the Futur Proche cannot achieve the same effect) ?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 16 at 23:06
@AlanEvangelista True, sarcasm can be embodied in any form, provided, among other things, that you have at your command the proper intonations; however, the case I mention is a tipyfied instance of that, it's dedicated to that particular type of sarcasm I mention and not any sort you might have in mind. There are other points, besides the highlighting of triviality; it can be derisiveness, unreasonableness, etc. (triviality being merely typical).
– LPH
Aug 16 at 23:18
3
This andwer is missing the real difference between the sentences and the "sarcastic" part is nonsensical.
– jlliagre
Aug 17 at 4:54
4
Plainly wrong, the answer should be deleted.
– petitrien
Aug 17 at 5:36
1
@LPH. None so deaf…
– petitrien
Aug 17 at 8:56
|
show 6 more comments
1
I think that any tense can express sarcasm. Could you give more details of how the sentence with the Futur Simple may be used sarcastically (and why the sentence with the Futur Proche cannot achieve the same effect) ?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 16 at 23:06
@AlanEvangelista True, sarcasm can be embodied in any form, provided, among other things, that you have at your command the proper intonations; however, the case I mention is a tipyfied instance of that, it's dedicated to that particular type of sarcasm I mention and not any sort you might have in mind. There are other points, besides the highlighting of triviality; it can be derisiveness, unreasonableness, etc. (triviality being merely typical).
– LPH
Aug 16 at 23:18
3
This andwer is missing the real difference between the sentences and the "sarcastic" part is nonsensical.
– jlliagre
Aug 17 at 4:54
4
Plainly wrong, the answer should be deleted.
– petitrien
Aug 17 at 5:36
1
@LPH. None so deaf…
– petitrien
Aug 17 at 8:56
1
1
I think that any tense can express sarcasm. Could you give more details of how the sentence with the Futur Simple may be used sarcastically (and why the sentence with the Futur Proche cannot achieve the same effect) ?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 16 at 23:06
I think that any tense can express sarcasm. Could you give more details of how the sentence with the Futur Simple may be used sarcastically (and why the sentence with the Futur Proche cannot achieve the same effect) ?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 16 at 23:06
@AlanEvangelista True, sarcasm can be embodied in any form, provided, among other things, that you have at your command the proper intonations; however, the case I mention is a tipyfied instance of that, it's dedicated to that particular type of sarcasm I mention and not any sort you might have in mind. There are other points, besides the highlighting of triviality; it can be derisiveness, unreasonableness, etc. (triviality being merely typical).
– LPH
Aug 16 at 23:18
@AlanEvangelista True, sarcasm can be embodied in any form, provided, among other things, that you have at your command the proper intonations; however, the case I mention is a tipyfied instance of that, it's dedicated to that particular type of sarcasm I mention and not any sort you might have in mind. There are other points, besides the highlighting of triviality; it can be derisiveness, unreasonableness, etc. (triviality being merely typical).
– LPH
Aug 16 at 23:18
3
3
This andwer is missing the real difference between the sentences and the "sarcastic" part is nonsensical.
– jlliagre
Aug 17 at 4:54
This andwer is missing the real difference between the sentences and the "sarcastic" part is nonsensical.
– jlliagre
Aug 17 at 4:54
4
4
Plainly wrong, the answer should be deleted.
– petitrien
Aug 17 at 5:36
Plainly wrong, the answer should be deleted.
– petitrien
Aug 17 at 5:36
1
1
@LPH. None so deaf…
– petitrien
Aug 17 at 8:56
@LPH. None so deaf…
– petitrien
Aug 17 at 8:56
|
show 6 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to French Language Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ffrench.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38037%2fdifference-between-va-faire-and-ira-faire%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
The sample sentences in the answer written by @Eauquidort both make sense to me. However, I can't imagine a situation in which your second sentence, Il ira faire du cerf-volant demain would make sense. I agree with Eau qui dort that there is a difference between the two expressions, with one involving movement and the other not, but in the case of faire du cerf-volant there is implicit movement anyway, as this isn't something you would do in your back yard! In other words, the movement is already included in the action. So, there would never be a need for "ira" in this particular example.
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 15:26
Even if "ira" is not required in my sentence because the movement is already implicit, I assume it still can be used for emphasis ?
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 17 at 19:55
I'm not sure what you mean by emphasis. Maybe you mean that it is emphasizing the going -- the fact that the boy will be going elsewhere for the activity. If so, then yes. // Your choice of verbs for talking about the future is actually quite simple. You can either use "va" with the verb in question (equivalent to he's going to take his make-up test tomorrow) or you can conjugate the verb in question in the future tense (equivalent to he will take the make-up test tomorrow). The third option you came up with, where you try to do both things (a form of aller plus a ...
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 23:23
... conjugation in the future tense) is a bit weird. Now, if you want to ask about the difference between the two valid options, that would be a separate question. If it hasn't been asked yet (sorry, I have not looked to see if it has), that would be an interesting question, I think.
– aparente001
Aug 17 at 23:29
Yes, I meant emphasis on the movement. Thanks! I am well aware of the future forms of French, the point here was understanding the nuance of using "ira faire qqch" and it is now clear.
– Alan Evangelista
Aug 19 at 4:25