Korean Job Discussion Forums

[meangradin]

I have noticed that most grammars do not include this tense, but I had a prof. who sold me on it. Consequently, in his grammar there were 16 tense-aspects, not the usual 12. Anyone care to comment?

[ajuma]

Could you give an example?

[robot]

hmm... never heard of this.

for past, present, and future, you've got

1. simple forms
2. continuous forms
3. perfect forms
4. perfect continuous forms

= 12

i don't see how we can have 16. 15 or 18 makes sense -- something in threes. any idea what your professor coulda meant?

ROBT.

[tomato]

Let's see how I do:

1. simple present (I go.)
2. present continuous (I am going.)
3. present perfect (I have gone.)
4. present perfect continous--I think! (I have been going.)

5. simple past (I went.)
6. past perfect (I had gone.)
7. past continuous (I was going.)
8. past perfect continuous--I think! (I had been going.)

9. simple future (I will go.)
10. conditional (I would go.)
11. future perfect (I will have gone.)
12. conditional perfect--I think! (I would have gone.)
13. future continuous (I will be going.)
14. conditional continuous--I think! (I would be going.)
15. future perfect continuous--I think! (I will have been going.)
16. conditional perfect continuous--I think! (I would have been going.)

17. present subjunctive (if he go)
18. past subjunctive (if I were you)

19. imperative (Go!)

[jmbran11]

I assume you mean "would", as in "When I was a child, I knew I would be a doctor someday." Or, "Yesterday I thought I would teach a class today, but my students didn't show up."

I don't teach it, but I've had to explain it on the fly when students asked.

I think this is the same form as tomato's #10 conditional, except that one is a hypothetical ("I would buy a car if I won the lottery"), not a future in the past kind of thing. I don't know a separate name for the tense.

[Woland]

The forms are either 'would'

e.g., I said I would help him after dinner

or 'was/were going to'

e.g., I was going to help him but something more interesting came up.

I haven't dealt with this form in years (I stopped teaching English a decade ago). I recall a friend back in CHicago who had a good set of lessons for it, but can't recall the details.

What is interesting to me is the difference in meaning when the two forms are interchangeable. Take these two sentences, for instance:

I knew John was going to meet Marie after work.

I knew John would meet Marie after work.

Try to teach your students that subtle a distinction through rules at the sentence level. This kind of thing requires a top-down, discourse-based approach.

[Son Deureo!]

[trinity24651]

OMG, Tomato - I feel like a blathering idiot!! I haven't covered grammar in umpteen years. Thank God! kindy's don't know what tense is!!

[Son Deureo!]

[meangradin]

here are some examples of the 16 tenses:
Simple Past Future Future in the Past
I go - I went - I will go - I would go
I am going - I was going - I will be going - I would be going
I have gone - I had gone - I will have gone - I would have gone
I have been going - I had been going - I will have been going -
- I would have been going


AS one poster mentioned, it is called the "conditional" in most grammars.

Of course, when we get in to the "passive" voice then we can not use the future in the past.

Not a big deal, just reflecting on how grammars differ by the teacher.

[Woland]

Just for the record, English has two grammatical tenses, past and non-past. Simple, Perfect, Progressive, and Perfect-Progressive are aspectual distinctions. Indicative, Subjunctive, Imperative, and Conditional are moods. Active, Passive, and Middle are voices.

There is some argument over what aspects and moods are indicated consistently in English. But on tense, there is no argument - only two.

[meangradin]

Woland,

I have to disagree with the assertion that ALL gramarians believe in only two tenses. George Stern, for one, argues that the future tense exists, and he cites many grammarians who agree with his position. Sorry, no link, but I do suggest reading his books.

You are right about the aspectual distinctions. I should have written "16 tense-aspects."

The point I was trying to make is that because the English language is not monitored by a specific group (French being one example), then there will be different views on what is correct English grammar.

However, I am hardly an expert in these matters. I am just a teacher struggling to make sense of the language.

Craig

[tomato]

According to one of my English professors, present and past are the only true tenses in the English language.

If I understood correctly, she regarded a construction as a tense only if the verb itself is changed. For example, has changes to had and is changes to was.

The construction does not count as a true tense through the mere addition of an auxiliary verb. So the future tense (will go) and the conditional tense (would go) are not true tenses in her book.

I know this is only one opinion, but I thought I'd put it out on the smorgasbord.