|
|
A concept of time
«...what native English speakers thinks about...» - sorry for misprints.
«..simultaneous with the moment the doubt was experessed:...» - not expressed but happend: the moment the speaker doubted is meant here.
Ant_222 wrote:
<<I. ... doubted if + past simple These are examples from google: Ex.: She doubted if I loved her. (1) Ex.: ... the realty firm doubted if this was a wise long-term relationship. (2) In these senteces past simple is used. That is because the action in question WAS SIMULTANEOUS WITH the moment the doubt was experessed....>> My reply: I am afraid your examples are insufficient. Simultaneity is not the only reason to use Simple Past in two or more actions. When actions are in sequence, it is a more common reason to use Simple Past: Ex: He stopped there, stayed a while, and then went on along the road. Therefore, my example is possible: Ex: He doubted if they visited their uncle the next day. == Visited happens after Doubted. As I have reasoned, now I (the speaker) know it is a fact, so I skip modal auxiliary. ---------------------- <<... doubted if + future in the past >> My reply: There is no "future in the past". It is a past doubt from someone other than the writer or speaker himself: Ex: He doubted they would go to visit their uncle. In my book I have explained there is a past doubt, a doubt from an actor in the storybook. As for the writer's doubt, it is a present doubt to the past, using perfective. Calling a tense "future in the past" proves one doesn't know how to define the future. Teaching a student to look for a future in the past will turn his common sense upside down. P.S. Typos will never be a problem. You may accuse me of typos, but I will not you.
Many of you are missing the point on "future tense." The grammatical term "tense" is not simply synonymous with "time." For there to be "tense" in a verb, it must be inflected. In English, verbs are only inflected to indicate the past and present tense. Indeed, even the present tense is rather spotty as there is often no inflection of the verb.
He walks (present "tense" - verb inflection) but I walk (present "time" - no verb inflection) He walked (past tense - verb inflection) He will walk (future "time" but no future "tense" - there is no inflection of "walk" here, just the "future time" construction "will+verb infinitive/base form") However, from the point of view of English language training, it's probably more practical not to confuse your students with these sorts of esoteric concepts. So maintaining the "useful fiction" of an English future tense makes a lot of sense. And regarding "time traveller John Titor," to quote Travis from another thread, "oh, puhleeez."
"What about 'He does walk'? A tense or a time?"
"does" is present tense. "walk" is an infinitive (base form of the verb).
Can't you see?
<<He will walk (future "time" but no future "tense" - there is no inflection of "walk" here, just the "future time" construction "will+verb infinitive/base form") >> He does walk (presnet "time" but not presnet "tense" - there is no inflection of "walk" here, just the "present time" construction "does+verb infinitive/base form") So, according to you: "He walks" is present tense. "He does walk" is presnet time.
"So, according to you:
'He walks' is present tense. 'He does walk' is present time." "He does walk" is a present tense construction because "does" is clearly in the present tense. But while it does indicate present time, it is not the present tense of "walk." Oh, I know that when we teach NNES, we always say, for example, where French uses "il marche" there are three possible variations in English: he walks (simple) he does walk (emphatic) he is walking (progressive) But these are really three separate verbal constructions with considerable differences in meaning (they are not interchangeable).
Sometimes they are interchangeable.
e.g. He tires when he walks quickly = he tires when he is walking quickly.
"He walks" is syntactically present tense and semantically habitual/timeless.
"He does walk" is syntactically emphatic present tense and semantically either emphatic present tense or emphatic habitual/timeless, depending on context and usage. "He is walking" is syntactically present tense and progressive aspect and semantically present tense.
<< "He walks" is syntactically present tense and semantically habitual/timeless.>>
You have forgot to mention other tenses: "He walked" is syntactically past tense and semantically habitual/timeless. "He has walked" is syntactically present perfect tense and semantically habitual/timeless. Etc.
"Sometimes they are interchangeable.
e.g. He tires when he walks quickly = he tires when he is walking quickly." But their meanings are not interchangeable. Even in your example above, there is a nuance of different meaning.
engtense, I was just mentioning the non-perfect semantic present tenses, and not all the tenses, aspects, and moods possible for the subject "he" and the verb "to walk". And no, you are incorrect about "he walked" and "he has walked", as:
"He walked" is syntactically past tense and semantically past (present-2) tense. "He has walked" is syntactically present tense and perfect aspect and semantically past (present-1) tense and perfect aspect "He had walked" is syntactically past tense and perfect aspect and semantically past (present-3) tense and perfect aspect This is besides the progressive variants of the above, which are pretty much like the above except tht they are semantically actually progressive (unlike in the present where the syntactic progressive for actions does not translate into actually being semantically progressive). Also note that I say that they are still semantically perfect aspect when they have syntactic perfect aspect here, since they have influence on usage beyond simply which "past" is being referred to. For example, things which are semantically perfect cannot be used with past time phrases like "last week" except when modal verbs are also involved, and also they generally are not used in a narrative context.
Travis,
Would you explain the tense in "is always walking......."? Is it something progressive or habitual? The following examples were found when I searched for "is always walking". Ex: "James goes above and beyond the call of duty in helping both faculty and students with their special projects as well as helping his fellow workers," wrote one co-worker. "He is always walking on campus after dark, checking for lighting that has gone out so that he can get it fixed to ensure student safety," Ex: "It seems as if Moscow is always walking back and they are always somewhat in retreat from the former Soviet empire..... Ex: God in Jesus Christ is always walking with you. Ex: He is always walking and he knows every inch of this country. He has no vehicle and he walks his own path with no regard for roads. He has been criss-crossing the Ozarks his entire life.
In the case of "is always walking", I would say that it is basically semantically timeless but not habitual, as it does not describe something that something *tends* to do, but rather specifies a specific action which is happening at all points in time under consideration (based on the given context). The main thing here is that the time adverb "always" changes what would otherwise be semantically present tense into a specific action that applies to all points in time together.
|