Future tenses
<<.....tends to put people's backs up and make them resistant to your argument.....>>
I meant to do it. You will never understand. Friendly agreement is the last thing I want to get. When they put their backs up and go against me, I learn new things from them. As I admit in my humble book, they readers are my teachers, I am their students. Forums are my schools. My website is a collection of the idea from these teachers. I can't think up anything by myself.
<<You will never understand.>>
You're right. I don't. When I read your posts, I don't want to post something myself and disagree with you so that you 'learn' something. I just switch off.
TTA : « Tense is used to express time. »
Parfois, mais pas seulement et pas nécessairement :
—> « 1945 : die Sowjetrussen nehmen Berlin ein »
—> « Je viens demain »
—> « Übermorgen sind die Blumen verblüht »
—> « Si j'avais de l'argent, j'achèterais une maison »
—> « Wollen wir tanzen ? » ~ « Werden wir tanzen ? » / « On danse ? » ~ « Et si on dansait ? »
Parfois, mais pas seulement et pas nécessairement :
—> « 1945 : die Sowjetrussen nehmen Berlin ein »
—> « Je viens demain »
—> « Übermorgen sind die Blumen verblüht »
—> « Si j'avais de l'argent, j'achèterais une maison »
—> « Wollen wir tanzen ? » ~ « Werden wir tanzen ? » / « On danse ? » ~ « Et si on dansait ? » Kirk is an eraser of messages. What a contradiction plot!
Antimoon Forum is losing score and prestige.
gUeSt Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:30 pm GMT
By moral disobedience, contradiction, and prestige.
NO SENSE TO SEARCH SOMETHING INTERESTING. EVERYTHING LOOKS
NASTY AND INCOHERENT. WHY DO I VISIT THIS SHIT?
Why j'avais de l'argent?
Do not let me cry.
Why are here information of my sound descriptions?
Are these people faking me and copying my messages to represent me?
I'm going to post this to let any intruder know who I am. I'm closer to them but they're not from me.
I hate fake threads.
Future tense?
I am a native english speaker and I do not know of any future tense in the english language. linguistically we just make a reference to the future based upon the present.
I will run, tommorrow.
We will win, the next point.
One day, we will be free.
in general when I think about it, we refer to the future by creating a time reference. (i.e. - tommorrow, afternoon, evening, numerical times etc.) It is pretty unconvienent, but it keeps the tenses of verbs to a minimum, and allows for a greater focus on the subject matter at hand.
Think about when you tell someone what you plan to do in the future. The focus is not on the time table surrounding the subject matter, but rather the subject itself.
We're getting carried away here.
The term "tense" is a technical one and requires inflection of the verb. Since no English verb is inflected to indicate future time, there is no future tense in the language.
It's that simple.
But not having a future tense does not mean a language has no means of indicating future time (this would be linguistically absurd); it merely means future time is not indicated by inflecting the verb.
Of course, this "tense/time" distinction is more or less particular to English grammatical nomenclature. In French for example, it's not an issue since "tense" and "time" are both "temps."
And also because French has a true future tense.
Mind you, it is practical from a comparative language approach to employ the "useful fiction" of an English future tense.
L6106AL pinpointed the root of the confusion. 'Tense' is a grammatical category, which is realised through changes in the form of the main (i.e. lexical) verb. I'm not using "inflection", as it does not cover irregular Past tense forms. On the other hand, 'Time' is a conceptual category. Time reference can be achieved through combinations of tense and aspect marking, as well as the use of time adverbials. I feel the choice of 'Present' and 'Past' to denote the two tenses in English is rather unfortunate, as it invites confusion.
L6106AL also argues that "it is practical from a comparative language approach to employ the "useful fiction" of an English future tense."
This may be so (though I can't see why one language should be made to fit the structure of another), but it s not a useful fiction when it comes to language learning/teaching. In my experience, it leads learners to overuse 'will + inf.', and, as a result, it increases the chances of learners unwittingly sounding more certain than they are or want to appear to be.
<<Future tense?
I am a native english speaker and I do not know of any future tense in the english language. linguistically we just make a reference to the future based upon the present.
I will run, tommorrow.
We will win, the next point.
One day, we will be free.>>
If WILL here is not a tense, what is it? What will you call it? A verb without tense? When will you use it, if not because of a future action?
WILL is a modal verb which, when used with the base form of the verb (infinitive), conveys the aspect of future time.
<<WILL is a modal verb which, when used with the base form of the verb (infinitive), conveys the aspect of future time. >>
1. So, may I take it from you that it has no tense in it? It is neither past tense, present tense, nor future tense?
2. Can't other modal auxiliary convey the aspect of future also?
Ex: I will/must/ought to/can/may/would/shall/should run, tomorrow.
Ex: We will/must/ought to/can/may/would/shall/should win, the next point.
Ex: One day, we will/must/ought to/can/may/would/shall/should be free.
<<WILL is a modal verb which, when used with the base form of the verb (infinitive), conveys the aspect of future time. >>
Human beings have the concepts of past, present, and future. For the sake's of easy understanding, grammars for young students have to agree there is the Future Tense. I bet no one will challenge if there are grammar books or web pages teaching the Future Tense. However, as students have grown up, they fail to define the future, so they argue there is no Future Tense. They call modal auxiliary verbs as verbs only, and cannot decide how to link them to tense. But these verbs are not present tense nor past tense. What else will you call them, after so many grammar books and web pages have called it the Future Tense?
If it as you say conveys the aspect of future time, is it still not enough to call Future Tense?
"So, may I take it from you that it has no tense in it? It is neither past tense, present tense, nor future tense?"
I'd say WILL has no tense at all. But don't confuse TENSE with TIME.
It's quite clear the various modal verbs are more than capable of conveying the concepts of past, present and future time without tense. WILL used as a modal implies future time when used in context.
Now, a number of modals do present interesting problems in terms of tense/time (e.g., WILL/WOULD, CAN/COULD, SHALL/SHOULD and MAY/MIGHT).
But again, modals are very much context-driven. It's just not possible to say "COULD is the past tense of CAN" in the way we can say "WROTE is the past tense of WRITE." COULD conveys various temporal and conditional aspects depending on its use in context. WROTE is past tense, pure and simple.
English is interesting in its approach to tense. It has a past tense, but only the bare bones of a present tense and no future tense at all.
<<I'd say WILL has no tense at all....>>
If so, I will use WILL for every sentence and claim I don't use tense. But it is not possible. If you are certain of it, you will not use it:
Ex I run tomorrow.
Most past cases are a certainty, so we don't use auxiliary verbs.
We would only use auxiliary verb when it is uncertain:
Ex: I will/must/ought to/can/may/would/shall/should run, tomorrow.
Ex: We will/must/ought to/can/may/would/shall/should win, the next point.
Ex: One day, we will/must/ought to/can/may/would/shall/should be free.
By uncertainty, I mean if you keep an eye on it, you know the real action only in the future. It is in the future you know the real action, so it is about future time. And because every sentence has a tense, the tense to say an uncertainty is the Future Tense.
Claiming the Future Tense is not weird, for many grammars teaching that.
Claiming there is no tense in a sentence is weird. It is as weird as claiming "I'd say the wall has no color at all....."
One claims the wall has no color, because he doesn't know how to define its color.
One claims the sentence has no tense, because he doesn't know how to define the tense.
-----------------------------
<<It's quite clear the various modal verbs are more than capable of conveying the concepts of past, present and future time without tense.>>
May I see your examples for modal auxiliary verbs to express the present and past, if it is quite clear?
"And because every sentence has a tense, the tense to say an uncertainty is the Future Tense."
"Claiming the Future Tense is not weird, for many grammars teaching that. Claiming there is no tense in a sentence is weird. It is as weird as claiming 'I'd say the wall has no color at all.....'"
You continue to confuse TENSE with TIME. The following sentences have no tense whatsoever and yet they still convey the concept of time:
The two boys return tomorrow to finish the work.
The two boys will return tomorrow to finish the work.
The boys work hard.
I run tomorrow (your own example - no tense here!).
In the next sentence, the PRESENT TENSE is used to describe an action in FUTURE TIME:
Jim is going to work tomorrow.
Some modal verbs convey very different aspects of time depending on context:
When I was young, I could run five miles in thirty minutes. (past)
I could do that with my eyes closed. (conditional future)
I wouldn't do that right now. (conditional future)
I would never do that when I was in school. (past)
To reiterate, TENSE is merely a grammatical term for inflection of the verb to indicate TIME.
The English phrase "we will go" contains no TENSE mechanism at all. The base form of the verb ("go") has not been altered in anyway to indicate future TIME.
In contrast, the French phrase for the same thing, "nous irons" is a true future TENSE. The form "ir(ons)" of the verb "aller" ("go") has one grammatical purpose in terms of time: future TIME.