Following a series of articles about the status of Mauritian’s future markers in the 1993 edition of Etudes Créoles (Baker 1993; Hazaël-Massieux 1993; Touchard & Véronique 1993) there has been little debate about the division of labour between POU and VA in the domain of future marking. With the exception of the article by Hazaël-Massieux (1993), literature on the distinction between POU and VA in Mauritian exhibits a strong consensus that the choice of marker depends on whether the context constitutes a definite or indefinite future (Adone 1994 : 40; Baker 1972: 109; Henri & Kihm 2015: 261 amongst many others). This article gives a detailed description of how these markers have evolved and interacted over time; more specifically, it shows that the label ‘indefinite’ does not adequately capture the complex nature of VA. Attempts to explain an ‘indefinite’ future in the literature until now are at best vague and at worst inadequate. This paper suggests an alternative way of addressing the issue, following Corbett’s (2007) canonical typological approach, which breaks down meanings into ‘features’ based on assumptions and propositions in the previous research.