The Future exists!

[fluffyhamster]

basically synthetic languages like Chinese

PS: Chinese is more analytic/isolating than synthetic/agglutinating.

[woodcutter]

Erm, I meant it was made out of lego

[iconoclast]

When I learnt German, the fact that, like English, it possesses no future tense was something no one batted an eyelid over, getting by quite happily with present tense (only one in German), modal cognates, and modal-like auxiliaries - just like English. That there can actually be a discussion over whether English possesses future tense has always puzzled me.

If you take a verb-inflecting language like Spanish, you can automatically and easily identify the tense of each and every one-word verbform. Thus, the first person plural one-word forms of the verb 'amar' (love):

amamos - present indicative
amemos - present subjunctive
amaremos - future
amaríamos - conditional
amáramos - imperfect subjunctive
amábamos - imperfect indicative
amamos - preterite [identical to present indicative in 1PP]

In English, all we have is 'love/loves' and 'loved'.

Contrariwise, the modal auxiliary 'will' has so many non-future reference uses that labelling it future tense contributes, in my experience, to the muddle in students' minds that "will is future, and future is will", both of which propositions could not be further from the truth. Consequently, students will often use 'will' as their default future reference form instead of the 'going to' structure.

Tense is form, which is boring. What we do with language to create meaning, including time reference and modality, is the interesting bit.

[fluffyhamster]

That there can actually be a discussion over whether English possesses future tense has always puzzled me.

Well, yes, and the whole point of this thread was ultimately to puzzle over why Stern seems to seriously believe that English has or should have future tense(s).

[woodcutter]

Stern is trying to say, I suppose, that since the argument seems to be that you must inflect a verb to get a tense, "He didn't go to the bank" etc are not past tense sentences by the (often merely implied) definition of those who must insist on making a flap about these things, but that such a narrow definition is a little absurd.

What people like Andrew who can speak of "tense-like features" mean is lost on me. What is the S Jones definition of tense? Broader than verbal inflection?

[fluffyhamster]

The difference with DO is that it does actually consistently inflect for/as present (with a differing form for third person singular) and past (and how else would we "tense" questions, negatives, short answers and emphatic statements in modern English), whereas (and as we all know) 'would' is not necessarily "the past" of 'will', or 'will' necessarily always quite "the future" (though we can probably theorize and handwave more about this as an aspect, maybe the aspect, of 'will', than about any supposed pastness - ah, but let's not ever forget the Lewisian concept of "remoteness", eh! - of 'would'; then, there's that Did Sir want anything else? type of example to add to the mix). So perhaps Stern is pairing apples with oranges to make and sell his particular fruitcake.