tourist пишет: ↑16 авг 2018, 12:34
Would you guys believe me if I said had was a typo ? )
I thought so and even wrote so first, trust me, but then I worked up some kind of explanation for yety-self, so ... you can see it all protected by the bracketed question marks.))
tourist пишет: ↑16 авг 2018, 12:34
in future instead of
in the future was used deliberately (not a typo)
So, what was meant in your translation
The water level has never risen above the ten metre mark so far and it won't exceed it in future (because we've made a technical provision)
was in fact
"It never has and it won't
from now onwards -- due to the provision."
I just always thought that
in future should suggest some sort of 'discontinuity' between the previous experience and the future intention (an opposition, actually):
{I've broken so many antique Chinese vases [vɑːzɪz] recently. ->} I'll try to be more careful in
the{BrE} future.
And that doesn't seem to be the case with the
flood record.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Michelangelo пишет: ↑16 авг 2018, 13:22
Я о подобном читал, но реально не знаю как это используется и в каких диалектах. :(
There's another good one
here.
If you speak American English, you don’t have to care about the distinction. However, if you speak British English, using “in future” instead of “in the future” can completely change the meaning of a sentence. Compare:
Human beings will live on the Moon in the future. (Human beings will live on the Moon at some point in the future.)
Human beings will live on the Moon in future. (British English only) (Human beings will live on the Moon from now on.)