NationStates Jolt Archive

Some say yes, others say no.

Yes because it has a tense marker: "will".

No because its tense marker is not a change of the root verb like past and present tense.

And on that note, how many people actually know what future perfect progressive tense is?

Wut?

Wut?

Mmmm...grammar...
It's better than icecream.

Does English have a future tense?

Yes (http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verb-tenses.htm)

It's a syntactically marked tense, not a morphologically marked tense.

Some say yes, others say no.

Yes because it has a tense marker: "will".

No because its tense marker is not a change of the root verb like past and present tense.

And on that note, how many people actually know what future perfect progressive tense is?
nah i dont remember what the future perfect progressive tense is but i know how to use it.

will have been knowing how to use it?

Yes (http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verb-tenses.htm)

That confused me greatly.

nah i dont remember what the future perfect progressive tense is but i know how to use it.

will have been knowing how to use it?

Oh-so-much fun! :)

Um.....I'm not sure, but Oklahoman does, we say "fixin' to" ....

I'm fixin to pack up for vacation.

I would say yes.

Of course it does. Otherwise, talking would be very difficult.

Some verbs could be used as future without using 'will':

I will go to France in September.
I go to France in September.

Or is that using a present tense in a future situation?

You don't have to conjugate a verb in order for there to be a tense. Future simple uses 'will' and the verb root. Future perfect progressive in English is something like "by the time you finish reading this, you will have noted that I've argued there is a future tense".

I only know these grammatical terms because I learned them in Spanish and French...never in English. I'm just comparing and figuring out how we'd say something in English.

If english does not have future tense for that reason, japanese has no tenses. So, I guess english do have future tense.

Some verbs could be used as future without using 'will':

I will go to France in September.
I go to France in September.

Or is that using a present tense in a future situation?

That's poor English, though.

That's poor English, though.

Yeah, I suppose the second just cuts out 'will' without changing the meaning, and I must admit I dislike phrases like, 'You ok?'.

Then again, I'm not sure how you can call using 'will' not a true tense?

Of course. Observe:

I will do your mum.
I will be doing your mum.
I will have done your mum.
I will have been doing your mum.

Some say yes, others say no.

Yes because it has a tense marker: "will".

No because its tense marker is not a change of the root verb like past and present tense.

Yes. It's an analytic form but it's still a future tense.

And on that note, how many people actually know what future perfect progressive tense is?

If someone posts an answer to this question tomorrow, I will have been reading it by next week. ;)

Of course. Observe:

I will do your mum.
I will be doing your mum.
I will have done your mum.
I will have been doing your mum.

Such a magnificent example phrase you used there.

Such a magnificent example phrase you used there.

Indeed. A toast, to RhynoD's Mother!

Such a magnificent example phrase you used there.

I like my example better. ;)

Some verbs could be used as future without using 'will':

I will go to France in September.
I go to France in September.

Or is that using a present tense in a future situation?

"I go to France in September" marks a habitual action.

For simple future you can say

"I will go to France in September."
"I am going to go to France in September."

The latter is often in speech "I am gonna go to France in September." That helps show that it's a different creature from the progressive "I'm going to France" meaning "I'm on my way there." You can't say "I'm gonna France" and have the same meaning.

I will go to France in September.
...

Or is that using a present tense in a future situation?

But then:
"I will be going to be going to France some time in the future."
What tense is that?

I like my example better. ;)

See, yours was clever, but you can't beat the mindless 'your Mother' joke pervading all unexpected situations. Londim's clearly used the phrase a lot to be able to display its potential so well; the mark of a well-rounded young man.

But then:
"I will be going to be going to France some time in the future."
What tense is that?

The pedantic tense.

But then:
"I will be going to be going to France some time in the future."
What tense is that?


Um, it's the nonsense tense. I think most people would assume it's some future of a future with maybe some progressive thrown in, but it's not productive by any means.

But that doesn't mean we can't make it productive! :)

The pedantic tense.

No, that's "I will have to be going to be willing to go to France". :D

Some say yes, others say no.

Yes because it has a tense marker: "will".

No because its tense marker is not a change of the root verb like past and present tense.

So it doesn't have a future tense because it uses a marker to construct the future tense. That it doesn't have.

Sounds perfectly logical to me...

[/sarcasm]

The English only like to talk about the present or the past.

The English only like to talk about the present or the past.

It depends what it's about:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7973857.stm

A future without tea is far more pressing than some small financial market trouble.

Some verbs could be used as future without using 'will':

I will go to France in September.
I go to France in September.

Or is that using a present tense in a future situation?

That would be present tense but future time. Which is why the argument that English doesn't have a future tense is valid: we use present tense for future time all the time.

It depends what it's about:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7973857.stm

A future without tea is far more pressing than some small financial market trouble.

:eek:

But then:
"I will be going to be going to France some time in the future."
What tense is that?

Future progressive. "to be going to" isn't part of the main verb phrase and I'm not sure what to call it.

Err it has the future tense in the same way as German, or the French "simple future".

So it doesn't have a future tense because it uses a marker to construct the future tense. That it doesn't have.

Sounds perfectly logical to me...

[/sarcasm]

You could argue that it's present tense with a modal (will) that makes it refer to future time, but does not modify the tense of the verb.

IE: I will go to France. "Go" is in present tense, but the modal "will" refers to future time.

It seems that most of the arguments for why English has no tense are based on the assumption that tense must be expressed morphologically. Why?

It seems that most of the arguments for why English has no tense are based on the assumption that tense must be expressed morphologically. Why?

Because all the other tenses in English are.

It seems that most of the arguments for why English has no tense are based on the assumption that tense must be expressed morphologically. Why?

Because the arguer speaks a language that does so, and therefore finds languages that don't to be inferior?

Because all the other tenses in English are.

Present is expressed only in the 3rd person singular and past is expressed by morphology, yes.

There are no other tenses distinguished in English. If we're going to start talking about mood and aspect, most of those are expressed syntactically as well.

Because the arguer speaks a language that does so, and therefore finds languages that don't to be inferior?

Ah! Sociolinguistic prejudice!

Consistent logic will always be the trademark strength of the English language

Ah! Sociolinguistic prejudice!

I proposerai the following: we changerons English to a morphofuturic standard, so these people beront happy. (okay, okay, French is the only one I know, sosumi!).

I proposerai the following: we changerons English to a morphofuturic standard, so these people beront happy. (okay, okay, French is the only one I know, sosumi!).

Ikch! Deutsch ist viel besser. But we run into the same problem.

English: I will go.
German: Ich wird gehen.


French it may have to be.

Present is expressed only in the 3rd person singular and past is expressed by morphology, yes.

There are no other tenses distinguished in English. If we're going to start talking about mood and aspect, most of those are expressed syntactically as well.

But they used to. Technically, it's not that they aren't distinguished by a morphological change, it's that they all have the same morphological change except for 3rd person singular.

But they used to. Technically, it's not that they aren't distinguished by a morphological change, it's that they all have the same morphological change except for 3rd person singular.

No, technically, there is no grammatical (syntactic or morphological) distinction between various kinds of future or past or whatever. In English we do not grammatically distinguish between immediate past, near past, remote past and indeterminate past. You can lexically distinguish them "recently" "a while back" etc, but you they are not distinguished grammatically. And you can't express what you don't distinguish.

And what does used to have to do with it? Just because a tense was expressed on way before and is expressed a different way now, doesn't mean we lost it. It means its method of expression has changed. The only way we can say we lost it is if it was no longer distinguished from other tenses.

Um.....I'm not sure, but Oklahoman does, we say "fixin' to" ....

I'm fixin to pack up for vacation.
Are ya fixin to take the fixins with ya?

This issue was discussed in one of my linguistics lectures at uni. The lecturer argued that will / shall are intentional markers, not tense markers.

Not only can you say:

I play football tomorrow
I will play football tomorrow

You can also say:

I play football now
I will play football now

Generally in English we need to specify future tense by context.

By the way, do people know the rules governing the use of "will" and "shall"?

Normal: "shall" is for first person usage, "will" for second and third person
Imperative: "shall" is for second and third person, "will" for first person, ie "You shall do as you are told", "I will pass this exam". (Note, neither example is necessarily in the future tense.)

Ikch! Deutsch ist viel besser. But we run into the same problem.

English: I will go.
German: Ich wird gehen.


French it may have to be.

Ich werde gehen\end{grammarnationalsocialism}

Some say yes, others say no.

Yes because it has a tense marker: "will".

No because its tense marker is not a change of the root verb like past and present tense.

And on that note, how many people actually know what future perfect progressive tense is?

The fact that the root word does not change does not mean that it lacks a tense. That's not what defines a tense.

e.g. I will have been answering your second question with an example when I am no longer typing this sentence.

That's a tense distinct from the future tense "I shall answer your question with an example." and past tense "I answered your question" Yet "answering" is not modified to anything that could not be used as a present tense verb and "been" could be used as a past tense verb.

This issue was discussed in one of my linguistics lectures at uni. The lecturer argued that will / shall are intentional markers, not tense markers.


Logically, it is etymologically appropriate that 'will' be considered 'intentional' - especially since it has arrived in it's current form by erosion of it's structure. 'Will' is tenseless, because it is the verb 'to have' which should modify it, but now doesn't. (Or 'to be', I guess...)

Some say yes, others say no.

Yes because it has a tense marker: "will".

No because its tense marker is not a change of the root verb like past and present tense.

And on that note, how many people actually know what future perfect progressive tense is?


Yes, it does.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=future+tense+in+English+grammar&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

And yup. Here's an example:

By this time next year, barring a change of circumstance, I will have been playing Nationstates for seven years.

English will never have a future tense.

This issue was discussed in one of my linguistics lectures at uni. The lecturer argued that will / shall are intentional markers, not tense markers.

Not only can you say:

I play football tomorrow
I will play football tomorrow

You can also say:

I play football now
I will play football now

Generally in English we need to specify future tense by context.

But that's not true. The only people who say "I play football tomorrow," are people pretending to be cavemen. Or in certain unusual circumstances where people are talking about ongoing arrangements like
(on Wednesday) "how about dinner with me Friday?"
"I can't, I have dance class on Fridays."
"How 'bout tomorrow"
"I can't, I go to my Nymphomaniacs Anonymous meetings tomorrow."

But that's verbal shorthand for "I currently have a schedule in which my Thursday nights are occupied and tomorrow happens to be Thursday." It's a present tense sentence.

Even "I will play football now," isn't really present tense. It's verbal shorthand for "I will play football so soon that I don't have time for any other activities between now and when play commences." It's a future tense sentence. Immediate future certainly, but future none the less.

"I will..." never means the present tense unless it is a completely different sense of the word such as a synonym for "desire" as in "You will bring me beer woman. I will it so. OW!"

Logically, it is etymologically appropriate that 'will' be considered 'intentional' - especially since it has arrived in it's current form by erosion of it's structure. 'Will' is tenseless, because it is the verb 'to have' which should modify it, but now doesn't. (Or 'to be', I guess...)

Etymology can be a clue to meaning, but does not define it or restrict it. That's why "assassin" means "one who murders political leaders," not "pothead."

Etymology can be a clue to meaning, but does not define it or restrict it. That's why "assassin" means "one who murders political leaders," not "pothead."

Of this, I am well aware. But I was looking for clues in the roots, so to speak.

Where we say 'I will', it might be more appropriate to say "I have a will" or "it is my will" - so, in this case, the etymology isn't really being deceptive.

It's an orphaned artifact in our language - which explains why it behaves as it does.

Of this, I am well aware. But I was looking for clues in the roots, so to speak.

Where we say 'I will', it might be more appropriate to say "I have a will" or "it is my will" - so, in this case, the etymology isn't really being deceptive.

It's an orphaned artifact in our language - which explains why it behaves as it does.

But it doesn't work that way anymore.

We can now say, without fear of grammatic contradiction, "it will rain later." In no way is intention or desire expressed. It's nothing more than a reference to time. As I said in the above post "will," as in 'shall' and "will" as in 'desire' are homonyms. Maybe English once lacked a future tense, but it has one now, and always will.

But it doesn't work that way anymore.

We can now say, without fear of grammatic contradiction, "it will rain later." In now way is intention or desire expressed. As I said in the above post "will," as in 'shall' and "will" as in 'desire' are homonyms. Maybe English once lacked a future tense, but it has one now, and always will.

It has a kind of cobbled future tense - hence the matter being debated, at all.

By this time next year, barring a change of circumstance, I will have been playing Nationstates for seven years.
It is turning into a life sentence huh?

No. English verbs have only past and present tenses. The future tense is created by using the present tense and the conditional mood. You cannot, with verbs alone, imply that an action is going to happen.

I went. past.
I go. present
I will go. future.

It is turning into a life sentence huh?

Quite the wit.

But that's not true. The only people who say "I play football tomorrow," are people pretending to be cavemen. Or in certain unusual circumstances where people are talking about ongoing arrangements like
(on Wednesday) "how about dinner with me Friday?"
"I can't, I have dance class on Fridays."
"How 'bout tomorrow"
"I can't, I go to my Nymphomaniacs Anonymous meetings tomorrow."

But that's verbal shorthand for "I currently have a schedule in which my Thursday nights are occupied and tomorrow happens to be Thursday." It's a present tense sentence.

Even "I will play football now," isn't really present tense. It's verbal shorthand for "I will play football so soon that I don't have time for any other activities between now and when play commences." It's a future tense sentence. Immediate future certainly, but future none the less.

"I will..." never means the present tense unless it is a completely different sense of the word such as a synonym for "desire" as in "You will bring me beer woman. I will it so. OW!"


Try these:

I am leaving now.
I am leaving tomorrow.
I leave now
I will leave now.

I am going now.
I am going tomorrow.
I go now.
I will go now.

All rely on the adverb to provide tense.

Yes, you have. However, it's not on my cheat sheet I had in 3rd grade of secondary school(age 14) because this was the simplest of all, and it had to fit on an A4 :p Your tenses are much easier than the the French or German tenses. But the future one exists, and I am using it frequently.

// how many tenses did I just use? And which one is missing :)

I would like to have an explanation of why a tense that implies 100% certainty should be placed on future events anyway... ;p

Perhaps:
I have been (I own the memories of the experience)
I will go (I want this experience)

Yes, tense is a feature of the predicate and is not just a feature of the single verb. English forms the future by means of the auxiliary verb "will" or "shall."

Germanic languages, unlike many other Indo-European languages (such as French), rely heavily on auxiliary verbs as tense-markers, and this might be due to a creolization of proto-Germanic with a non-Indo-European language.

Argument solved.

Yes, tense is a feature of the predicate and is not just a feature of the single verb. English forms the future by means of the auxiliary verb "will" or "shall."

Germanic languages, unlike many other Indo-European languages (such as French), rely heavily on auxiliary verbs as tense-markers, and this might be due to a creolization of proto-Germanic with a non-Indo-European language.

Argument solved.

So...

Explain, "I am leaving tomorrow" and "I shall leave now".

Um.....I'm not sure, but Oklahoman does, we say "fixin' to" ....

I'm fixin to pack up for vacation.

In the East Bay we say "finna". We drop as many letters from spoken words as possible. It's like a game!

future perfect = will have been.
as in: "there might some day be some point in having had this discussion."

I would like to have an explanation of why a tense that implies 100% certainty should be placed on future events anyway... ;p

Okay, then let's introduce the "intended future tense": "I willifican play football tomorrow", and the "future tense barring divine intervention": "I godwilling play football tomorrow". :D

Some say yes, others say no.
Yes because it has a tense marker: "will".
No because its tense marker is not a change of the root verb like past and present tense.
And on that note, how many people actually know what future perfect progressive tense is?

wiki: grammatical tense
Grammatical tense is a temporal linguistic quality expressing the time at, during, or over which a state or action denoted by a verb occurs.

Tense is one of at least five qualities, along with mood, voice, aspect, and person, which verb forms may express.

English has two tenses by which verbs are inflected: a non-past tense (present tense) and a past tense (indicated by ablaut or the suffix -ed). What is commonly called the future tense in English is indicated with a modal auxiliary, not verbal inflection.


Of course English has a future tense, but it's not an inflected tense. It's rendered through a periphrase.

wiki: periphrase

In linguistics, periphrasis is a device by which a grammatical category or relationship is expressed by a free morpheme (typically one or more function words modifying a content word), instead of being shown by inflection or derivation. For example, the English future tense is periphrastic: it is formed with an auxiliary verb (shall or will) followed by the base form of the main verb. Another example is the comparative and superlative forms of adjectives, when they are formed with the words more and most rather than with the suffixes -er and -est: the forms more beautiful and most beautiful are periphrastic, while lovelier and loveliest are not.[1]

Periphrasis is a characteristic of analytic languages, which tend to avoid inflection. Even synthetic languages, which are highly inflected, sometimes make use of periphrasis to fill out an inflectional paradigm that is missing certain forms.[2]

A comparison of some Latin forms with their English translations shows that English uses periphrasis in many instances where Latin uses inflection:

Latin (inflected) English (periphrastic)
stēllae of a star
patientissimus most patient
amāberis you will be loved

Of course it does. That's like saying there are no infinitives in English because we use the word "to".

See, yours was clever, but you can't beat the mindless 'your Mother' joke pervading all unexpected situations. Londim's clearly used the phrase a lot to be able to display its potential so well; the mark of a well-rounded young man.

*bows*

It is both a gift and a curse.

No, but it will in the future.

No, but it will in the future.

ba dum tish.

I am going to France in September
I have to go to France in September
I might go to France in September


No rules in English we make them up as we go along.

Never, never, never split the infinitive. Then along came Star Trek. To Boldly go where no one has gone before. Boom. So much for that rule.

We also don't do Masculine and Feminine Articles?

Le, La, Les, Un, Une whatever....

Also bring and take are almost always interchangeable:


I'll bring it right back. (to you)
I'll take it away. (from you)
Take this away. (from me)
Bring the car. (to me)

However

Bring the car to your Mother
Take the car to you Mother


Humbug.

The only one that does change is "Take two aspirins and call me in the morning."

You can't use bring in this one.

Ich werde gehen\end{grammarnationalsocialism}

Oops, yes.

Ich werde gehen
Er wird gehen

Yes?