Future tenses

Uriel   Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:29 pm GMT
I didn't say that "now" was ONLY defined in milliseconds. I said anytime you use the word next, you are referring to the future.
TTA   Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:08 pm GMT
You are explaining "next", not "future".
Uriel   Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:46 pm GMT
No. Read it again.
TTA   Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:34 am GMT
OK, if you think you have already defined the future here, let it be the final definition for the future time. Don't eve change it again.
TTA   Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:03 am GMT
<< anytime you use the word next, you are referring to the future. >>

Can't you see? "Referring to the future" is not the future itself. "Referring to Jack" is not Jack himself, obviously. It is just like "present millisecond" is not the present itself. But I don't think you can see logic.

I write two words "good morning", by the next word, I have already successfully defined the future time. I don't even know it! How lucky I am!!

According to your logic, by the time I write the first word, I have already defined the present time. Brilliant.
Guest   Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:51 am GMT
Here's also something about this topic: http://home.bluemarble.net/%7Elangmin/miniatures/tense.htm
Travis   Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:04 am GMT
Ignore this TTA; they are clearly either a troll or an idiot, who is probably not worth your time dealing with in the first place.
TTA   Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:26 am GMT
Travis wrote:
<<Ignore this TTA; they are clearly either a troll or an idiot, who is probably not worth your time dealing with in the first place. >>

Hello, it has been a long time. We are all idiots, being not able to define the future time.
Some learners confuse the students by suggesting there is no Future Tense.
As an idiot, I confuse these learners by asking them to define the common concepts we daily use. See what is happening?

Calling people to ignore me, you seem to have something to say, right?
Travis   Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:32 am GMT
Well, you have been busy trying to split hairs over the specific definition of the concept of the future, as if one can define it as some specific particular point in time relative to the present; such is a pointless waste of other users' time, to say the very least.
Candy   Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:41 am GMT
TTA/Engtense: I don't know what your point is, or what you hope to achieve here. I do think that your hostile, confrontational attitude is not likely to win any converts to whatever your point might be.
TTA   Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:02 am GMT
A guest wrote:
Here's also something about this topic: http://home.bluemarble.net/%7Elangmin/miniatures/tense.htm

My reply: Another reason why learners claim there is no Future Tense is mentioned in the web page:
<<We're in the habit of saying that Will and Shall indicate the future, but there's good reason to question whether English has anything at all that can be called a pure `future tense'.>>

Their logic is, if there is no "pure Future Tense", there is a good reason to question whether there is the Future Tense.

Personally, I find it unfair to do so. Why do they ask for "pure Future Tense" at the first place? Have they fairly asked also for "pure past tense"? Or "pure present tense"? There is no standard to judge a "pure" tense.
I may also ask: "Is there pure past tense?" Does this question prove there is no past tense?
I may also ask: "Is there pure present tense?" Does it prove there is no present tense?

Moreover, as they are discussing the Future Tense, they have assumed they know what is the future time, what is the present time, and what is the past time. But honestly, they don't know what is the future time, nor the present time.
TTA   Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:16 am GMT
<<TTA/Engtense: I don't know what your point is, or what you hope to achieve here. >>

I bet you don't. :-)

Please allow me to explain. I don't know what is their point in claiming there is no Future Tense. Why are they hostile to students who are learning the Future Tense. I ask for their reasons. They are gradually noticing there is no such reason.
I want to make a discussion in a discussion forum. I beg this is allowed here. I can see you have a friendly manners.
TTA   Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:27 am GMT
Travis wrote:
<<Well, you have been busy trying to split hairs over the specific definition of the concept of the future.....>>

My reply: Probing deeper into an English topic is no doubt "splitting hairs". But this is what a forum for. What are people doing around here? Are they combining hairs?
Candy   Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:02 pm GMT
<<I want to make a discussion in a discussion forum. I beg this is allowed here.>>

I hope so! I think that taking a 'certain tone' in your posts tends to put people's backs up and make them resistant to your argument, that's all. Just a comment.
PPD   Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:35 pm GMT
TTA is the same weirdo "engtense" from this thread - http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t494.htm