"The boys work hard." conveys a habitual concept of time.
Future tenses
<<"I will run tomorrow." implies no uncertainty. (This has nothing to do with foretelling the future.)
"I might run tomorrow." implies uncertainty.>>
My reply: There are different shades of uncertainty, and therefore we have to keep several modal auxiliary verbs for the difference. MIGHT is one of those. MIGHT is the weakest certainty.
Your opinion perhaps comes from the fact that conventional grammars have labeled Will, not Might, as the Future Tense, so you have to see a big difference between the two verbs.
Ultimately, even "I run tomorrow" can be canceled, where is the certainty? But we want to put in some certainty in the near future, don't we? Whether it is certainty or not depends on the speaker's perception.
Simple Present "I run tomorrow" is of little difference from Simple Present "I run regularly". As I run regularly, I have not doubt in saying "I run tomorrow". However, if I didn't run regularly and someone recommends me to start running, I say "I will run tomorrow".
"I might run tomorrow." implies uncertainty.>>
My reply: There are different shades of uncertainty, and therefore we have to keep several modal auxiliary verbs for the difference. MIGHT is one of those. MIGHT is the weakest certainty.
Your opinion perhaps comes from the fact that conventional grammars have labeled Will, not Might, as the Future Tense, so you have to see a big difference between the two verbs.
Ultimately, even "I run tomorrow" can be canceled, where is the certainty? But we want to put in some certainty in the near future, don't we? Whether it is certainty or not depends on the speaker's perception.
Simple Present "I run tomorrow" is of little difference from Simple Present "I run regularly". As I run regularly, I have not doubt in saying "I run tomorrow". However, if I didn't run regularly and someone recommends me to start running, I say "I will run tomorrow".
<<"The boys work hard." conveys a habitual concept of time.>>
My reply: Please, "habitual" is not a concept of time. We have only three time concepts: past, present, and future. If "habitual" is a concept of time, so too will wonderful, hard-working, documentary, etc.
Just because three concepts of time are not enough for us to explain many kinds of tenses, they start to use Meanings such as habit to explain Simple Present. But they don't regard habit or habitual as a concept of time.
My reply: Please, "habitual" is not a concept of time. We have only three time concepts: past, present, and future. If "habitual" is a concept of time, so too will wonderful, hard-working, documentary, etc.
Just because three concepts of time are not enough for us to explain many kinds of tenses, they start to use Meanings such as habit to explain Simple Present. But they don't regard habit or habitual as a concept of time.
L6152IC analyzed:
<<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!). >>
And also:
<<Ex: The boy works hard.
It certainly DOES have tense: present tense.>>
My reply: Does "The boy does work hard" have tense? According to you, WORK here hasn't marked, so it has no tense.
So, "The boy works hard" has tense, while "The boy does work hard" hasn't. Am I correct?
<<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!). >>
And also:
<<Ex: The boy works hard.
It certainly DOES have tense: present tense.>>
My reply: Does "The boy does work hard" have tense? According to you, WORK here hasn't marked, so it has no tense.
So, "The boy works hard" has tense, while "The boy does work hard" hasn't. Am I correct?
"If in one sentence you can see the meaning and grammatical role, it is not called Context."
Oh, it most assuredly is context. Only context distinguishes "run" (past participle) from "run" (the noun). How would you explain the way an English speaker knows the difference?
Neither "The boys work hard" nor "The boys do work hard" has any TENSE. In terms of TIME, there really isn't enough CONTEXT in these brief phrases to determine whether, as one poster puts it, the use is "habitual time" or "present time":
You won't regret hiring my two sons. The boys do work hard. ("habitual").
The boys work hard, knowing that every minute counts. ("present time")
Oh, it most assuredly is context. Only context distinguishes "run" (past participle) from "run" (the noun). How would you explain the way an English speaker knows the difference?
Neither "The boys work hard" nor "The boys do work hard" has any TENSE. In terms of TIME, there really isn't enough CONTEXT in these brief phrases to determine whether, as one poster puts it, the use is "habitual time" or "present time":
You won't regret hiring my two sons. The boys do work hard. ("habitual").
The boys work hard, knowing that every minute counts. ("present time")
"I've also heard 'We leave tomorrow', 'we go tomorrow', 'we see tomorrow', etc. All such sentences require 'will'to my taste."
'Taste" has nothing to do with it; these phrases are fine.
'Taste" has nothing to do with it; these phrases are fine.
<<You won't regret hiring my two sons. The boys do work hard. ("habitual"). >>
My reply: There are more:
You won't regret hiring my two sons. The boys do work hard. ("regret").
You won't regret hiring my two sons. The boys do work hard. ("hard-working").
You won't regret hiring my two sons. The boys do work hard. ("working").
You won't regret hiring my two sons. The boys do work hard. ("happy hour").
You won't regret hiring my two sons. The boys do work hard. ("timeless").
You won't regret hiring my two sons. The boys do work hard. ("knowledge").
And so on... But what do they prove? According to you, here is even no tense at all.
My reply: There are more:
You won't regret hiring my two sons. The boys do work hard. ("regret").
You won't regret hiring my two sons. The boys do work hard. ("hard-working").
You won't regret hiring my two sons. The boys do work hard. ("working").
You won't regret hiring my two sons. The boys do work hard. ("happy hour").
You won't regret hiring my two sons. The boys do work hard. ("timeless").
You won't regret hiring my two sons. The boys do work hard. ("knowledge").
And so on... But what do they prove? According to you, here is even no tense at all.
No, no. You've missed the point entirely.
"Habitual" because "The boys do work hard" is a simple statement on their ability to work.
It does not imply they are working now (present time) or will be working tomorrow (future time).
"Habitual" because "The boys do work hard" is a simple statement on their ability to work.
It does not imply they are working now (present time) or will be working tomorrow (future time).
<<The boys work hard, knowing that every minute counts. ("present time")>>
My reply: I don't know how you see the present time. However, since the no-tense structure gives you the impression of present time, it is enough to agree there is the present tense.
My reply: I don't know how you see the present time. However, since the no-tense structure gives you the impression of present time, it is enough to agree there is the present tense.
<<No, no. You've missed the point entirely.
"Habitual" because "The boys do work hard" is a simple statement on their ability to work.
It does not imply they are working now (present time) or will be working tomorrow (future time).>>
My reply: Who is missing the point? If an action doesn't include the present time nor the future time, is it a habit at all? Does "The boys do work hard" refer only to the past?
By claiming the present time, I didn't say they must be working now. It is same as your example:
<<The boys work hard, knowing that every minute counts. ("present time")>>
Do you mean they must be working right now?
"Habitual" because "The boys do work hard" is a simple statement on their ability to work.
It does not imply they are working now (present time) or will be working tomorrow (future time).>>
My reply: Who is missing the point? If an action doesn't include the present time nor the future time, is it a habit at all? Does "The boys do work hard" refer only to the past?
By claiming the present time, I didn't say they must be working now. It is same as your example:
<<The boys work hard, knowing that every minute counts. ("present time")>>
Do you mean they must be working right now?
<<Neither "The boys work hard" nor "The boys do work hard" has any TENSE.>>
My reply: So, "The boy works hard" has tense, while its equivalent "The boy does work hard" hasn't. Am I correct?
My reply: So, "The boy works hard" has tense, while its equivalent "The boy does work hard" hasn't. Am I correct?
"My reply: So, 'The boy works hard' has tense, while its equivalent 'The boy does work hard' hasn't. Am I correct?"
Incorrect. Both have TENSE, the former through the use of "works" and the latter through the use of "does."
The third person singular "-(e)s" inflection is the only instance of the present tense occurring in English "regular" verbs. Apart from that, the present tense only manifests itself in three other ways:
1. the verb "be" - am, is, are;
2. the verb "have" - has; and
3. a few verbs whose pronunciation changes in the third person singular - e.g., do/does, say/says.
Incorrect. Both have TENSE, the former through the use of "works" and the latter through the use of "does."
The third person singular "-(e)s" inflection is the only instance of the present tense occurring in English "regular" verbs. Apart from that, the present tense only manifests itself in three other ways:
1. the verb "be" - am, is, are;
2. the verb "have" - has; and
3. a few verbs whose pronunciation changes in the third person singular - e.g., do/does, say/says.
<<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.>>
My reply: To you, a marked verbform is tense, while an unmarked verbform isn't. I find it a rather rare classification.
Of course, usual grammar sources will take both marked and unmarked forms as Simple Present:
<<FORM Simple Present
EXAMPLE: [ to run]
I run
you run
he runs
she runs
it runs
we run
they run>>
== http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/simplepresent.html
I am interested to know from where you have got such nomenclature.
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.>>
My reply: To you, a marked verbform is tense, while an unmarked verbform isn't. I find it a rather rare classification.
Of course, usual grammar sources will take both marked and unmarked forms as Simple Present:
<<FORM Simple Present
EXAMPLE: [ to run]
I run
you run
he runs
she runs
it runs
we run
they run>>
== http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/simplepresent.html
I am interested to know from where you have got such nomenclature.
"Of course, usual grammar sources will take both marked and unmarked forms as Simple Present:
<<FORM Simple Present
EXAMPLE: [ to run]
I run
you run
he runs
she runs
it runs
we run
they run"
This is a perfect example of making a nonsense of English grammar to suit the notions of Latin grammar. It is pointless to conjugate the "simple present" of the verb "run" this way. 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.'"
<<FORM Simple Present
EXAMPLE: [ to run]
I run
you run
he runs
she runs
it runs
we run
they run"
This is a perfect example of making a nonsense of English grammar to suit the notions of Latin grammar. It is pointless to conjugate the "simple present" of the verb "run" this way. 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.'"