Future tenses

<<The following sentences have no tense whatsoever and yet they still convey the concept of time:

The two boys return tomorrow to finish the work.

The two boys will return tomorrow to finish the work.

The boys work hard.

I run tomorrow (your own example - no tense here!). >>


My reply: Let it be written: No tense here.

<< Some modal verbs convey very different aspects of time depending on context:
When I was young, I could run five miles in thirty minutes. (past)
I could do that with my eyes closed. (conditional future)
I wouldn't do that right now. (conditional future)
I would never do that when I was in school. (past) >>

My reply: I don't think the notes in the bracelets fit the examples. "I could do that with my eyes closed" may be referring to a past case of playing piano, rather than a future.

Why are modal auxiliary verbs called "auxiliary"? It is because they mainly help. However, each of them has its own lexical meaning: WILL denoting willingness, CAN expressing ability, OUGHT TO saying an obligation, etc. The rule is, when they are not in the duty of expressing lexical meaning, they help other verbs to express a future action, that is, an uncertainty.

Now in your examples some of them are expressing the future, while some are still in their lexical meanings:
Ex1: The two boys return tomorrow to finish the work. (present certainty)
Ex2: The two boys will return tomorrow to finish the work. (present uncertainty)
Ex3: As you see, I can do that with my eye closed. (lexical meaning, present ability)
Ex4: I will not do it right now. (lexical meaning, present willingness)

If we keep an eye on these actions, next week we may see some contrasts. By next week, an uncertainty may become a certainty known to us, so the tense is different. We may in the following analyze the examples above, one by one, as looking back at them next week. Please understand now the time is past for all these actions above and we are doing the retrospect.

As for Ex1, since in retrospect the action is past, we use past tense to express it:
Ex1b: The two boys returned to finish the work.
==Because of this contrast, we have to put a name to its present form in Ex1. We therefore call Ex1 a Simple Present action. People fail to see time comes from contrast, so they sometimes claim the present is timeless. Now you even claim there is "no tense here". As for me, I have always pointed out the present exists because of a contrast with the past. As you agree there is past, you have to presuppose there is not-yet-past. What is the suitable name for not-yet-past, if not 'present'? Therefore, the tense in Ex1 indicating an action not-yet-past is the present tense.

As for Ex2, please understand that if we now take a guess at the future, it is an present uncertainty or present guess, rather than a future one. In future, we don't need to guess. That is to say, Ex2 is a present uncertainty:
Ex2: The two boys will return tomorrow to finish the work. (present uncertainty)
By next week, it has become a certainty, we use past tense to say whether it is real or not:
Ex2b: The two boys returned to finish the work.
Ex2b: The two boys didn't return to finish the work.
Ex2b: ?The two boys would return to finish the work. (incorrect if standing for a past certainty.)
== As we may see, we cannot keep the modal verb here, whether in past form or present form. This proves that, as the Future Tense, WILL cannot serve as a past tense. This is the most important feature to prove what is the Future Tense.

As for Ex3, since CAN in lexical meaning is not a Future Tense, its has its past tense COULD:
Ex3b: As you saw last week, I could do that with my eye closed.
== It is no more than a past and present contrast. Again, as you agree this is past, you have to agree there is not-yet-past, as in Ex3, which is called present.

As for Ex4, for WILL in lexical meaning is not a Future Tense, its has its past tense WOULD:
Ex4b: I wouldn't do it.
== A willingness in the past.

However, only WOULD and COULD can function as lexical meaning in the past form. That is to say, we don't have such a past form in other auxiliary verbs:
Ex4c: ?I might not do it. (incorrect if indicating a past)
Ex4c: ?I should not do it. (incorrect if indicating a past)
Ex4c: ?I must not do it. (incorrect if indicating a past)
== Actually, as the Future Tense, their past forms (might/should/etc.) also serve as Future Tense, yet with a weaker degree of uncertainty.

Because an auxiliary verb may be busy in its lexical function, so we have to keep a few auxiliary verbs in preparation, helping other verbs to denote a future. If WILL is busy, we use MAY, etc. However, as people cannot see the time flow as above, they claim that it is enough for us to use only one auxiliary verb in WILL to express the future. Later on, they even suspect if there is the Future Tense at all.

The Future Tense is much more difficult than Simple Past. As past time will not shift to present or future, the future will first shift to the present, and then the past. Without displaying the time flow as we do above, explaining the Future Tense is nearly impossible.

www.englishtense.com

How to prove auxiliary verbs are the Future Tense?

We use modal auxiliary verbs (Will, Shall, Can, May, Must, etc., as well as their past forms) to help express uncertainty:
Ex: It must/shall/will/ought to/can/may/should/would/might rain soon.
Why we need so many auxiliary verbs for help is sometimes some cannot help, so we may use another.

As we have proven already, the future time is same as the present time. Unfortunately, because some learners have failed to see this and failed to define the future time, they wrongly conclude there is no Future Tense. This will create confusion in students who are learning Future Tense. Here we may try to prove auxiliary verbs are the Future Tense:

Learners in trying to disprove Future Tense point out that there are many ways to express the future. Therefore, they argue, how can you prove auxiliary verbs alone are the future tense? Our proof is, as the Future Tense, auxiliary verbs cannot function as past tense. This is demonstrated in the following contrasts in the time flow.

One may argue that Simple Present and Present Progressive can say a future:
Ex: They are going to visit their uncle tomorrow.
Ex: They visit their uncle tomorrow.

However, they have their past tenses. If next week, for example, we look back to these actions, they can be expressed in past tenses:
Ex: They were going to visit their uncle.
Ex: They visited their uncle.

But auxiliary verbs are Future Tense, expressing uncertainty:
Ex: They may/ought to/shall visit their uncle tomorrow.
If next week we are looking back, because actions have become certainty, we cannot keep the auxiliary verb:
Ex: *They might/ought to/should visit their uncle last Friday.
Instead, we use past tense only, whether true action or not:
Ex: They visited their uncle last Friday.
Ex: They didn't visit their uncle last Friday.
This proves auxiliary verbs are the Future Tense that doesn't serve as a past tense.

------------------------
If we are not certain of a past case, we may still use the auxiliary, yet in the perfective:
ExA: He would have visited their uncle last week.
However, here modal verbs still function as the Future Tense. Why? If you keep an eye on the uncertainty, you know the real action only in the future. It is in the future we know whether it is a real action or not. The same can be said to an ordinary future action:
ExB: Next Monday it will rain.
Therefore, both ExA and ExB are in the Future Tense. Both of them are only present doubt, rather a past doubt or a future doubt.

Likewise, auxiliary verbs can refer to an uncertainty at present:
ExC: He may be in his office now.
Again, it is in the future that we know it is a real action or not. Even it takes only a few seconds to prove the statement whether real or not, it is still in the future, according to the definition of the future time.

By certainty/uncertainty, therefore, we may see the use of auxiliary verbs is consistent, as in ExA and ExC. Conventional ways to explain the auxiliary verbs have no consistence. They have to start to use meanings and jargons to explain ExA or ExC.

Auxiliary verbs help other verb to express uncertainty, and this is why they are called auxiliary. I don't insist we have to call them the Future Tense. But many grammar books and web pages have been teaching the Future Tense, relating to auxiliary verbs. Agreeing to them will make less confusion in students.

Here I just want to introduce the main concept of the Future Tense. It can be much more complicated if we get into details. Different opinions are welcome. Criticisms are invited.

All that to say you continue to insist on conflating TENSE with TIME.

TTA, Master Conflater.

The word Tense comes from Latin tempus, meaning Time. Also, dictionary says tense is used to express time. We have a good reason to conflate the two words.

L6139HN wrote:

"The following sentences have no tense whatsoever and yet they still convey the concept of time:

The two boys return tomorrow to finish the work.
The two boys will return tomorrow to finish the work.
The boys work hard.
I run tomorrow (your own example - no tense here!)."

All of these sentences, or rather all the main verbs in these sentences, are marked for tense (Present tense). In fact, all finite verb forms (and, therefore, the vast majority of sentences) are marked for tense.

Apart from distinguishing between 'tense' and 'time' (as they don't necessarily coincide), we also need to distinguish between 'tense' and 'aspect'.

And a general comment: When empirical evidence contradicts our theories, it doesn't do us credit to either disregard or, even worse, blame or try to discredit the evidence. Simply put, when we find sentences with, say, Past tense verbs referring to present or future time, we would be wise to revise our opinion that tense only refers to time, and that there is a one-to-one correspondence between tense and time.

<<.....we also need to distinguish between 'tense' and 'aspect'.>>

May I see your examples of the need?

"All of these sentences, or rather all the main verbs in these sentences, are marked for tense (Present tense). In fact, all finite verb forms (and, therefore, the vast majority of sentences) are marked for tense."

Not one of the verbs in these sentences is marked for TENSE in any way. The verbs "return," "work" and "run" rely entirely on context to indicate TIME.

The two boys return tomorrow to finish the work.

Here the word "tomorrow" does the work conveying the idea of future time.

The two boys will return tomorrow to finish the work.

Here the construction "will+verb base form (infinitive)" indicates future time - reinforced by "tomorrow."

The boys work hard.

Here the word order "subject+verb base form" conveys the idea of present time.

I run tomorrow.

Here again, the word "tomorrow" does the work of conveying the idea of future time.

The true English present tense is confined entirely to the third person ("he runs") and the "am/is/are" inflections of the verb "be."

Still, my linguistic pedantry does serve to highlight the practical purpose of "pretending" there is a full set of English tenses.

It is useful for, say, a Spanish speaker learning our language to be taught the "will+verb" construction as a "future tense" if that helps them to correlate that construction with the future tense of their own language.

Happy Easter!

And yes, arguably, "am/is/are" aren't so much inflections of "be" as present tense forms of the verb.

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!).
In the next sentence, the PRESENT TENSE is used to describe an action in FUTURE TIME:
5. Jim is going to work tomorrow.>>

My reply: Those sentences that you claim have no tense are, as in 1,2, 3, and 4, verbs unaffected or unmarked. Those which you claim have tense are, as in 5, verbs affected or marked. So, you regard an action with the verb unmarked as "without tense", don't you?

May I ask if the following example has tense or not?
Ex3b: The boy works hard.

"So, you regard an action with the verb unmarked as "without tense", don't you?"

If the verb is uninflected/unmarked, it has no tense. There is nothing to distinguish "run" in "I run" from "run" in "I will run" other than the context in which it occurs.

"May I ask if the following example has tense or not?
Ex3b: The boy works hard."

It certainly DOES have tense: present tense.

<<If the verb is uninflected/unmarked, it has no tense. >>

So I see. Isn't this a weird nomenclature?

It's an example of a grammatical term ("tense") - which is a useful concept in one language (Latin, in truth) - being applied without much too much deliberation to another language where it has a less significant role.

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!). >>

May you tell me what is the concept of time of "The boys work hard"?