Is this grammatically incorrect? Settle an argument please.

[Frozenteatowel]

“Next, I’m going to be using a powder to mattify the concealer.” Should it be, “Next, I’m going to use a powder...”. Or are they both acceptable? Thank you.

Both acceptable, I'd say.

Second one sounds better though.

Im not sure either works for me. Is mattify even a word?

"The next step would be to use a powder..."

or "Using a powder, mattify the ....

Mattify is a verb therefore is grammatically correct. However it is not a term I would choose to use.

"Next, I will use..."

Thanks. To me the second sounds better grammatically but think the first is acceptable, especially if someone who doesn’t have English as a first language wrote it.

Both are ok but 'mattify' - what's that?

I'm going to apply powder to make the concealer matt?

I've never heard mattify before. (Still, I only did English A level). Otherwise both would be ok.

Both are acceptable.

They are both ok grammatically as the meaning is clear, but the first introduces an unnecessary passive voice which is not good style and the second is a somewhat casual use of 'going to' to mean 'intend to' or 'am about to'. Stylistically "I will use a powder to mattify" or 'I will mattify using a powder' are better, but this is being picky!

I'm going to use a powder next...

Thank you all so much. Not sure mattify is a real word but it was the use of “I’m going to be using” that was up for debate chez Frozen tea towel.

I think the first sentence implies ongoing, whereas the second suggests one off/time limited.

it's padding with unnecessary words, perhaps because the speaker likes the sound of her own voice, or wants to sound more conversational.

Colloquially, they are both fine.

I agree that 'I'm going to be using' would, until recently, have sounded like padding. But these days, surely 'I'm going to be using' implies that the speaker is narrating a video? It's idiomatic - you'd expect someone doing any kind of video to say this. In 500 years time, someone will have come up with a fancy grammatical term for what this is.

I think 'I will use' sounds a bit stiff. 'I'm going to use a powder' is less stiff, but also less idiomatic.

Technically, the real issue here is that the phrases you're quoting mix different ways of measuring time. That's one of the big issues with grammar. 'Next' is a word that suggests a precisely delineated block of time. Conventional wisdom has it that you wouldn't say 'next' if you were going to talk about an imprecise, ongoing spread of time. But when you say 'I'm going to be,' that's pretty imprecise. So, grammatically, that's an odd mixture.

I don't think anyone would struggle to understand you, and honestly I think we are all splitting the tiniest hairs here.

I think the first sentence implies ongoing, whereas the second suggests one off/time limited.

Agreed. Compare:

"Don't call me, I'm going to be sleeping".
"Don't call me, I'm going to sleep".

The first focuses on the action being in progress in the future (there is no passive here mentioned by a PP, it is actually continuous). The second only focuses on the fact that the action will take place in the future.

You could also say "I'll be sleeping" which is called the Future Continuous and can pretty much be used interchangeably with Going to be +ing.

Therefore, both are acceptable. (FWIW I teach English as a second language.)

Those aren't the same structures, push.

@LRDtheFeministDragon, what do you mean? My examples contain exactly the same structures as OP's examples:

I'm going to be using = I'm going to be sleeping
I'm going to use = I'm going to sleep

If you prefer, change the verbs from my examples. The principle is exactly the same:

"Don't call me, I'm going to be running".
"Don't call me, I'm going to run".

I see where you're coming from, because the basic messages are pretty similar. But the grammar is quite different.

When you say something like 'don't,' you're issuing a command or a request. In grammatical terms, this is a specific kind of statement, and it affects the way you construct the rest of the sentence that follows. So, if you say 'Don't call me,' you are making a demand or a request. After that, you say 'I'm going to be running'. Properly, you'd never separate those with a comma, and this is part of the issue - the comma makes it seem as if they're loosely connected statements, when in the first governs the second.

You could say:

Don't call me: I'm going to be running.

or

Don't call me. I'm going to sleep.

But you shouldn't really link either clause with a comma.

In any case, these constructions are different from the OP's construction. She isn't issuing a command or a request at all, but situating her narrative in relation to temporal markers. So, when she says 'next, I am going to ...' there is no causal relation between the parts of the phrase before and after the comma. The relation is chronological, and chronology doesn't follow the same grammatical structures as an imperative.

@LRDtheFeministDragon Me again. I've just seen from your above post that your focus is on the word "next" which you feel works better with simple rather than continuous future tenses so maybe that's what you're getting at because my examples didn't include "next".

I feel that OP's question was more directed at whether Going to be +ing is an acceptable structure rather than which one sounds better with the word "next".

I totally see where you are coming from with that but even with "next" I still feel that both tenses are acceptable for the reasons I gave above.

Absolutely. I framed my original answer in terms of what's colloquial rather than what's grammatically correct, too. I do agree - it's fine to be grammatically incorrect, but idiomatic. You're illustrating incorrect grammar that still 'sounds right'.

Thank you all so much. Really interesting. English grammar is a bit nightmarish though .

There is no passive, maxelly

I am going to be using is a future version of I am using.

They are still passive voices.

Still acrive that should have said!