Future tenses
TTA : « « He will run tomorrow » indique une incertitude parce qu'il peut décommander l'action. Ce n'est pas un vrai action. However, si je me suis formé pour tellement longtemps que je suis certain au sujet du fonctionnement, je dirai, dans la certitude, « I run tomorrow ». En fait, pendant que je m'étais exercé pour tellement longtemps, j'ai déjà commencé l'action d'« I run tomorrow ». C'est une action actuelle réellement, donc dans le Simple Present. »
C'est bien ce qui m'avait semblé. Mais n'étant pas anglophone maternel je préfère me fier à l'avis de ceux dont l'anglais est la langue de naissance. Merci pour ton aide.
<<You can conjugate the "simple present" by the statement:
"In all persons but the third person singular, English regular verbs are invariable (i.e., they retain the 'base form'). In the third person singular, they take the inflection '-(e)s.'">>
My reply: I agree to you. In this case, the 'base form' is part of Simple Present!! It is different from your idea of "no tense".
We cannot discuss something with no name. If "The boys work hard" has no tense, what do you call it? The 'base form'? Then the base form functions as Simple Present, indicating present time, as you have analyzed:
<<The boys work hard, knowing that every minute counts. ("present time")>>
We have merely different nomenclatures. I think there is a tense in "The boys work hard", and you don't. You don't need to call this mere difference as "making a nonsense of English grammar to suit the notions of Latin grammar."
It's not just a question of different nomenclatures; it's a question of different approaches.
Now, I understand that you seem to be coming from the point of view of explaining English verbs by comparison to verb constructions in other languages. This has been a fairly common traditional grammatical method for some time. It's what leads to aberrations like:
I work, you work, he/she/it works, we work, you work, they work.
But while this exercise may be useful in a language that has verbs marked for person, tense and number (for example, Italian), it's utterly pointless for English which, in the above example has only one marked form ("works").*
Further, if your aim to draw a comparison between say, English and Italian verb structure, then the exercise above has some merit.
When I look at English, and try to consider how it functions, I tend to cast aside a lot of this "Latin grammar" baggage that simply gets in the way and just skews my understanding.
I approach the language on the principle of "what you see is what you get." Take "The boys work hard." Only one word in this phrase has any inflection at all - and it's not the verb; it's "boys" which has an "-s" to indicate plural. The other three words rely on nothing other than the order they appear in the phrase to create meaning; syntax at its most obvious.
To prove this, just move "work" around and see what happens to the meaning:
The boys[']* hard work (now "work" is a noun)
Work the boys hard (now it's an order to the boys' supervisor!)
The work boys hard (now it's nonsensical)
To my mind, a native speaker simply expects a word to appear in a certain position and in a certain form for the language to make sense.
* The verb "work" has no more than four forms: work, works, working, worked. Those are all the forms this verb needs to do its job in any English phrase or sentence.
** The apostrophe is merely a written convention of course.
L6173OI : « Take "The boys work hard." Only one word in this phrase has any inflection at all - and it's not the verb; it's "boys" which has an "-s" to indicate plural. »
En fait, le substantif et le verbe sont tous deux marqués : « The boy*s* work*Ø* hard ».
Idem pour : « The boy*Ø* work*s* hard ».
Dans ce type de phrase, l'alternance {Ø ; s} s'applique à la fois au substantif et au verbe et fonctionne sur le principe de l'exclusion mutuelle.
Ceci dit, si les alternances {Ø ; s} nominale et verbale sont formellement identiques, elles diffèrent par nature.
L6173OI wrote:
<<To prove this, just move "work" around and see what happens to the meaning:
The boys[']* hard work (now "work" is a noun)
Work the boys hard (now it's an order to the boys' supervisor!)
The work boys hard (now it's nonsensical)
To my mind, a native speaker simply expects a word to appear in a certain position and in a certain form for the language to make sense.>>
My reply: I agree with you, and now I call the following indications the "bare form" also, in communicating with you:
<<The following sentences have no tense whatsoever and yet they still convey the concept of time:
1. The two boys will return tomorrow to finish the work.
2. The two boys return tomorrow to finish the work.
3. The boys work hard.
4. I run tomorrow (your own example - no tense here!).
.....Neither "The boys work hard" nor "The boys do work hard" has any TENSE.>>
Most important, I also agree to your use of the bare form:
<<The boys work hard, knowing that every minute counts. ("present time")>>
The question is, in this thread as we are discussing Future Tense, what is the time concept of this bare form: "I run tomorrow"? Is it past, present, or future?
greg:
"En fait, le substantif et le verbe sont tous deux marqués : « The boy*s* work*Ø* hard ».
Idem pour : « The boy*Ø* work*s* hard ».
Dans ce type de phrase, l'alternance {Ø ; s} s'applique à la fois au substantif et au verbe et fonctionne sur le principe de l'exclusion mutuelle."
At one time, I would have readily agreed with you. But I've found myself moving away from many linguistics concepts which in my view now often seem rather overcomplicated.
This sort of morphemic marking ("Ø") may be useful between linguists but I'm not convinced it really reflects what's going on in the language.
I think a native English speaker simply and intuitively knows all the circumstances and context in which "work/works/working/worked" sound "right."
TTA:
"[W]hat is the time concept of this bare form: 'I run tomorrow'? Is it past, present, or future?"
It's future, with "tomorrow" doing the TIME work.
You regard "I run tomorrow" as:
<<It's future, with "tomorrow" doing the TIME work.>>
My reply: Because the future time is overlapped with the present time, it is hard to say "tomorrow" is a future time. It is within this present week, anyway. So it is a present action. If you must split between the present time and the future time, the difference can only be the smallest moment, even much shorter than a millisecond. That is to say, the difference doesn't exist.
As I have explained, the use of the bare form of "I run tomorrow" is same as that of "I run regularly". If we regard "I run regularly" as a present regularity, it means it is not yet finished now. In this case, it certainly includes "I run tomorrow". As a consequence, we don't need to claim there are two uses here, in the same "bare form". "I run tomorrow" is therefore a present action, unless you claim "I run regularly" includes only the past, and not the present.
But we need to express uncertainty sometimes and reasons are numerous. For instance, even I run regularly, and now you ask me if I am busy tomorrow, I will say "I will run tomorrow". I mean whether I run or not is an uncertainty, and it depends on why you are asking me. If what you ask me to do is more important than my usual running, I will cancel the exercise.
The characteristic of "I will run tomorrow" is interesting. As a guest here has pointed out, it is a PRESENT uncertainty, rather than a future uncertainty. By tomorrow, it is not an uncertainty anymore. It is in the future we know whether it is a real action or not, so it is a future action.
By the way, what would you prefer to call them, a bare form or past tense?
1. I did run yesterday.
2. I would run tomorrow.
LOL talk about splitting non-existent hairs. Chercher la petite bete, n'est-ce pas greg?
L6173OR : « I think a native English speaker simply and intuitively knows all the circumstances and context in which "work/works/working/worked" sound "right." »
Mais personne n'a prétendu le contraire ! C'est précisément parce qu'on admet la primauté de l'usage par les locuteurs maternels (et non pas d'une quelconque théorie pseudo-mathématique) qu'on peut ensuite tenter de formaliser ce qui se passe effectivement.
Le symbole « Ø » n'est pas une convention abstraite : c'est une réalité tangible que l'on désigne à l'aide d'un symbole — par commodité et pour éviter des phrases de 3 km.
Si j'écris « work*Ø* », c'est pour signifier « work » ¤¤¤PAR OPPOSITION¤¤¤ à « work*ed* » ou « work*ing* » ou « work*s* ». Ce n'est pas pour signifier « work » en tant que tel.
Greg wrote:
<<Le symbole « Ø » n'est pas une convention abstraite : c'est une réalité tangible que l'on désigne à l'aide d'un symbole — par commodité et pour éviter des phrases de 3 km.>>
My reply: You must be joking!! There are many grammar books or web pages explaining tenses without using symbol « Ø ». Must their examples be as long as 3 km?
Ex: Birds fly.
Ex: He swims well.
L6173OR : « I think a native English speaker simply and intuitively knows all the circumstances and context in which "work/works/working/worked" sound "right." »
My reply: I have heard about that. But as English has become an international language, people want to know its grammar, that is, how to explain it. And believe it or not, some English users don't even know if in the following examples there is a tense or not:
<<The following sentences have no tense whatsoever and yet they still convey the concept of time:
1. The two boys will return tomorrow to finish the work.
2. The two boys return tomorrow to finish the work.
3. The boys work hard.
4. I run tomorrow (your own example - no tense here!).
.....Neither "The boys work hard" nor "The boys do work hard" has any TENSE.>>
How can such grammars teach foreign students to sound "right"?
TTA : encore une fois, le symbole « Ø » sert à mettre en relief que l'absence de marque formelle est en soi une marque formelle. Le fait que tu ne le trouves pas dans des ouvrages de grammaire veut simplement dire que leurs auteurs ne ressentent pas la nécessité d'utiliser le symbole « Ø ». Mais leur choix ne nous renseigne en rien sur la valeur intrinsèque de « Ø ».
De la même manière que tu te posais des questions métaphysiques sur des oppositions sémantiques telles que :
« I run tomorrow » vs « I'll run tomorrow »,
je te suggère d'élargir ton champ d'investigations à la didactique de la présentation :
« I run*Ø* tomorrow » vs « I run tomorrow »
« he run*s* tomorrow » vs « he runs tomorrow ».
Greg wrote:
<<je te suggère d'élargir ton champ d'investigations à la didactique de la présentation :
« I run*Ø* tomorrow » vs « I run tomorrow »
« he run*s* tomorrow » vs « he runs tomorrow ». >>
My reply: What I mean is, if you want to keep the symbol « Ø » in English explanation, it is fine for me. I just want to point out that you don't need to frown on those who don't use it.