I'am sorry for such large a post. I didn't expect that I would write so much...
How to define the future and the past?
By the time you said this:
>>Every action is either in the past or in the future. Or it is divided into two parts: one in the past, and one in future. So what is the present time? <<
I thought you said there is no present time, so I have interest. I didn't expect you meant it is there on the border between the past and the future..... You should have said this earlier.
>>Every action is either in the past or in the future. Or it is divided into two parts: one in the past, and one in future. So what is the present time? <<
I thought you said there is no present time, so I have interest. I didn't expect you meant it is there on the border between the past and the future..... You should have said this earlier.
Oh... I did mention the border, but didn't manifetly say it is this border I call the present. It seemed to me that was clear...
But, now, what do you think about my 'concept', how you call it?
But, now, what do you think about my 'concept', how you call it?
My theory can be summarized as simple as this:
1. A present certainty is a present action.
2. A present uncertainty (possibility) is a future action.
With all due respect, I wonder your idea can be put into a simple summary of a few lines?
1. A present certainty is a present action.
2. A present uncertainty (possibility) is a future action.
With all due respect, I wonder your idea can be put into a simple summary of a few lines?
I don't see any definition of the past and the future in theese lines.
"I am not sure you are online now" - that is a present uncertainity. But is it a future action?
"I am not sure you are online now" - that is a present uncertainity. But is it a future action?
Never conflate "tense" with "time."
"Tense" is a grammatical concept pertaining to verb inflection.
For example, English is perfectly capable of expressing future time even though it lacks a future tense.
"Tense" is a grammatical concept pertaining to verb inflection.
For example, English is perfectly capable of expressing future time even though it lacks a future tense.
JJM:
You shouldn't feed the trolls. I thought about posting a comment similar to yours after the first trollish post, but I reconsidered.
You shouldn't feed the trolls. I thought about posting a comment similar to yours after the first trollish post, but I reconsidered.
>> Never conflate "tense" with "time." "Tense" is a grammatical concept pertaining to verb inflection. For example, English is perfectly capable of expressing future time even though it lacks a future tense.<<
With respect, may I ask, can we call modal (auxiliary) verbs the future tense? I do. Tense comes from Latin Tempus. Tense is time.
My humble opinion is, we cannot say that when we use modal verbs we don't use tense at all. Can we use modal verb in every sentence so that there will be no tense at all. No, because modal verbs are used to express the future. Trying my best, I want to prove to you that all modal verbs can satisfy your expectations of the future tense.
My basis idea is, the future is a possibility, and we use modal verbs to tell the reasons why we say a possibility -- that is why we have many modal auxiliaries.
With respect, may I ask, can we call modal (auxiliary) verbs the future tense? I do. Tense comes from Latin Tempus. Tense is time.
My humble opinion is, we cannot say that when we use modal verbs we don't use tense at all. Can we use modal verb in every sentence so that there will be no tense at all. No, because modal verbs are used to express the future. Trying my best, I want to prove to you that all modal verbs can satisfy your expectations of the future tense.
My basis idea is, the future is a possibility, and we use modal verbs to tell the reasons why we say a possibility -- that is why we have many modal auxiliaries.
>>I don't see any definition of the past and the future in theese lines. <<
Then it is my fault. The past is "before now'. The past always throws a contrast with the present.
The future and the present are overlapped. They are of the same time, but of different certainty. The reasoning was in the previous page.
By the way, as a tense must parasitize on sentence, we can only talk about a "future action", after we have defined the future.
---------------
>>"I am not sure you are online now" - that is a present uncertainity. But is it a future action? <<
The negative is not an action at all and is hard to be analyzed.
--------------
I stress that I know very little about English and therefore come here to discuss. Of course, I admit what I have suggested around here may be wrong. Your comments are always appreciated.
Then it is my fault. The past is "before now'. The past always throws a contrast with the present.
The future and the present are overlapped. They are of the same time, but of different certainty. The reasoning was in the previous page.
By the way, as a tense must parasitize on sentence, we can only talk about a "future action", after we have defined the future.
---------------
>>"I am not sure you are online now" - that is a present uncertainity. But is it a future action? <<
The negative is not an action at all and is hard to be analyzed.
--------------
I stress that I know very little about English and therefore come here to discuss. Of course, I admit what I have suggested around here may be wrong. Your comments are always appreciated.
"With respect, may I ask, can we call modal (auxiliary) verbs the future tense? I do. Tense comes from Latin Tempus. Tense is time."
We can and do call the construction "will/shall+infinitive" the "future tense" but this is actually a "useful fiction" in grammatical terms. We do this for comparative purposes: it is useful to say that the English "future tense" equivalent of the French "j'irai" is "I will go."
But in fact, "I will go" involves no use of tense because "go" is not inflected to indicate the future.
"Tense" may indeed represent "time" but in grammar, but "time" need not necessarily correspond to a "tense," for example:
I'm going home tomorrow (future time/present tense)
Though the origin of both words is indeed Latin "tempus," "time" and "tense" are not always synonymous terms in grammar.
We can and do call the construction "will/shall+infinitive" the "future tense" but this is actually a "useful fiction" in grammatical terms. We do this for comparative purposes: it is useful to say that the English "future tense" equivalent of the French "j'irai" is "I will go."
But in fact, "I will go" involves no use of tense because "go" is not inflected to indicate the future.
"Tense" may indeed represent "time" but in grammar, but "time" need not necessarily correspond to a "tense," for example:
I'm going home tomorrow (future time/present tense)
Though the origin of both words is indeed Latin "tempus," "time" and "tense" are not always synonymous terms in grammar.
>>But in fact, "I will go" involves no use of tense because "go" is not inflected to indicate the future.<<
I heard this too often, but no one can tell me what then we call the situation? If this situation is about the future, why can't we call it future tense? I find out that because they cannot define the future time, so they conclude there is no future tense. It is a present doubt, so it is the future tense.
In "we/you go", there is also no inflection, shall we say there is no tense?
In "I may go home tomorrow", May tells the reason why we say this possibility, and this possibility is realized in the future. That is to say, it is now not an action. It is only a possibility. And just because modal verbs are used to tell a possibility, we use Simple Present or present Progressive to indicate what we say is not a possibility, and it is for real: "I'm going home tomorrow." Therefore, the two expressions are different and agreed by most grammarians who advocate the future tense.
The difference is not just in reasoning. Next week when we refer to the case, going home has become a fact. Now, "I'm going home tomorrow" has a past tense: "I was going home."
But "I may go home tomorrow" has no past tense: "*I might go home", because the future tense is not used to tell the past action. We can only say "I went home". This proves again that modal verbs are the future tense.
I heard this too often, but no one can tell me what then we call the situation? If this situation is about the future, why can't we call it future tense? I find out that because they cannot define the future time, so they conclude there is no future tense. It is a present doubt, so it is the future tense.
In "we/you go", there is also no inflection, shall we say there is no tense?
In "I may go home tomorrow", May tells the reason why we say this possibility, and this possibility is realized in the future. That is to say, it is now not an action. It is only a possibility. And just because modal verbs are used to tell a possibility, we use Simple Present or present Progressive to indicate what we say is not a possibility, and it is for real: "I'm going home tomorrow." Therefore, the two expressions are different and agreed by most grammarians who advocate the future tense.
The difference is not just in reasoning. Next week when we refer to the case, going home has become a fact. Now, "I'm going home tomorrow" has a past tense: "I was going home."
But "I may go home tomorrow" has no past tense: "*I might go home", because the future tense is not used to tell the past action. We can only say "I went home". This proves again that modal verbs are the future tense.
A past or present doubt
If we now take a guess at a yesterday's action, is it a past or present doubt?
Ex: He would have seen the papers yesterday.
== It is a present doubt, rather than a past doubt.
If it is a present doubt, which I think so, it is not much different with a present guess at the future:
Ex: He will see the papers tomorrow.
The realizations of both of them are also in the future. What I mean is, in both of them, you only know the fact in the future.
They are present doubt, and therefore are in the future tense. The further proof is, sometimes we may even use present-form auxiliaries to say a present doubt to the past:
Ex: He will have seen the papers yesterday.
== <will + yesterday> is not a rarity. The more frequent is <may + yesterday>.
If we now take a guess at a yesterday's action, is it a past or present doubt?
Ex: He would have seen the papers yesterday.
== It is a present doubt, rather than a past doubt.
If it is a present doubt, which I think so, it is not much different with a present guess at the future:
Ex: He will see the papers tomorrow.
The realizations of both of them are also in the future. What I mean is, in both of them, you only know the fact in the future.
They are present doubt, and therefore are in the future tense. The further proof is, sometimes we may even use present-form auxiliaries to say a present doubt to the past:
Ex: He will have seen the papers yesterday.
== <will + yesterday> is not a rarity. The more frequent is <may + yesterday>.
Agree:
It's pointless to argue over a technical term like "tense." I really could care less if people want to use "future tense" when they mean "future time." It's akin to our penchant for using terminology like "accusative case."*
You would be further ahead simply saying "past/present/future time" since English, like a number of other languages, does not always resort to "tense" to express "time."
"In 'we/you go', there is also no inflection, shall we say there is no tense?"
Actually, you bring up a good point here. It could arguably be stated that the only present tense inflection in English occurs in the third person singular indicative of all verbs (less modals and "be"). Otherwise, "present time" is indicated with the "base" form of the verb.
This simply points out again that the traditional grammar approach to tense and time, firmly based on comparison with Latin verb conjugations, is questionable.
* English has no accusative case.
It's pointless to argue over a technical term like "tense." I really could care less if people want to use "future tense" when they mean "future time." It's akin to our penchant for using terminology like "accusative case."*
You would be further ahead simply saying "past/present/future time" since English, like a number of other languages, does not always resort to "tense" to express "time."
"In 'we/you go', there is also no inflection, shall we say there is no tense?"
Actually, you bring up a good point here. It could arguably be stated that the only present tense inflection in English occurs in the third person singular indicative of all verbs (less modals and "be"). Otherwise, "present time" is indicated with the "base" form of the verb.
This simply points out again that the traditional grammar approach to tense and time, firmly based on comparison with Latin verb conjugations, is questionable.
* English has no accusative case.