Future tenses

greg   Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:24 pm GMT
L6139HN : « I run tomorrow (your own example - no tense here!). »

Ah bon ? Je dirais que le temps grammatical est le présent. Le futur est ici un temps sémantique manifesté par l'adverbe « tomorrow » qui indique le futur, précisément. Le verbe « run » ne supporte ici aucun marquage du temps sémantique ; mais il se pourrait que ce présent grammatical soit juste un élément de modalisation si l'opposition « I run tomorrow » vs « I'll run tomorrow » faisait effectivement apparaître cette nuance. Mais ça, seuls des anglophones maternels peuvent le confirmer ou l'infirmer.
L6144NL   Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:50 pm GMT
In French of course, the terms TENSE and TIME are identical: they're both "temps."

Hence the need to further define the difference with the qualifiers "grammatical" and "sémantique."
TTA   Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:13 pm GMT
L6144NO wrote:
<<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!). >>

As for 3, some learners claim there is no time indicated in "The boys work hard". They call it timeless action. But you see the concept of time in it. May you tell me what is the concept of time in "The boys work hard"?
greg   Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:14 pm GMT
L6144NL : ce qui ne répond toujours pas à ma remarque !...
TTA   Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:24 pm GMT
L6144NO wrote:
<<In French of course, the terms TENSE and TIME are identical: they're both "temps.">>

My reply: So, after all, TENSE has a big connection to TIME, even in French. And you suggested I have in English overemphasized the connection between the two terms:
<<All that to say you continue to insist on conflating TENSE with TIME.>>

If there is no tense in "The boys work hard", how can you see its concept of time at all?
TTA   Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:30 pm GMT
Greg wrote:
<<Ah bon ? Je dirais que le temps grammatical est le présent. Le futur est ici un temps sémantique manifesté par l'adverbe « tomorrow » qui indique le futur, précisément.>>

Je suis d'accord avec vous.
TTA   Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:38 pm GMT
<<Le verbe « run » ne supporte ici aucun marquage du temps sémantique ; mais il se pourrait que ce présent grammatical soit juste un élément de modalisation si l'opposition « I run tomorrow » vs « I'll run tomorrow » faisait effectivement apparaître cette nuance.>>

le modalisation ici est incertitude.
« I run tomorrow » dit une certitude.
« I'll run tomorrow » dit une incertitude.
TTA   Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:57 pm GMT
« 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.
Guest   Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:55 am GMT
"I run tomorrow." isn't English.

"I will run tomorrow." implies no uncertainty. (This has nothing to do with foretelling the future.)

"I might run tomorrow." implies uncertainty.
Guest   Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:57 am GMT
RE what I wrote: "I run tomorrow." isn't English.

In other dialects it might be valid, but not in mine.
L6152IR   Sat Apr 15, 2006 8:33 am GMT
"'I run tomorrow.' isn't English."

It certainly IS English:

"Aren't you in the next race?"
"No, they've postponed the 100-metre event. I run tomorrow."
L6152IC   Sat Apr 15, 2006 8:49 am GMT
"My reply: So, after all, TENSE has a big connection to TIME, even in French. And you suggested I have in English overemphasized the connection between the two terms"

Of course TENSE has a connection with TIME, I'm not disputing that. It is a grammatical means to indicate TIME by the form of the verb.

But many languages, TIME can be indicated in other ways, without verb inflection. hen the vrb is not marked to indicate TIME, no TENSE is involved.

"If there is no tense in 'The boys work hard', how can you see its concept of time at all?"

Well, abig part of the problem is that we all insist in using short phrases to illustrate our grammatical examples. We tend to forget that a tremendous amount of meaning (certainly in English) is conveyed purely by word order and context.

Let's look at the word "run" again in the following examples.

Notice that "run" does not change in any way (i.e., no TENSE is involved) but, thanks to context alone, its meaning/grammatical role does:

Run as fast as you can! (imperative)

I told him to run as fast as he can. (infinitive)

It's vital that he run as fast as he can. (subjunctive)

He'll run faster tomorrow. (future time - will+infinitive).

I run in the 100-metre tomorrow. (future time)

If he'd run that fast yesterday, he'd have won the race. (past time)

That was an excellent run! (no longer a verb at all but a noun!)
L6152IH   Sat Apr 15, 2006 8:50 am GMT
Sorry - writing in a hurry today. Apologize for various typos in my text!
Guest   Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:44 am GMT
" 'I run tomorrow.' isn't English."

It certainly IS English:

"Aren't you in the next race?"
"No, they've postponed the 100-metre event. I run tomorrow." "

It is BUT what I was suggesting in my next message was that the construction on its own is rare in my dialect and is probably limited to few usages. Ten times out of ten, I would say "I will run tomorrow" or "I am to run tomorrow".

I've also heard "We leave tomorrow", "we go tomorrow", "we see tomorrow", etc. All such sentences require "will" to my taste.
TTA   Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:46 pm GMT
L6152IC wrote:
<<Notice that "run" does not change in any way (i.e., no TENSE is involved) but, thanks to context alone, its meaning/grammatical role does:
Run as fast as you can! (imperative)
I told him to run as fast as he can. (infinitive)
It's vital that he run as fast as he can. (subjunctive)
He'll run faster tomorrow. (future time - will+infinitive).
I run in the 100-metre tomorrow. (future time)
If he'd run that fast yesterday, he'd have won the race. (past time)
That was an excellent run! (no longer a verb at all but a noun!)>>

My reply: If in one sentence you can see the meaning and grammatical role, it is not called Context. It is called 'sentence', I am afraid. I think you have a nomenclature of your own to call things in grammars. The strangest of all is, though, you regard "The boys work hard" as having no tense.

Nevertheless, you still didn't tell me how to see the time concept of "The boys work hard", which you claim has no tense whatsoever and yet still conveys the concept of time. May I ask, again, what is its concept of time?

Furthermore, does the following sentence have tense?
Ex: The boys do work hard.