Interesting use of "Future Perfect Tense" form

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 5:48 pm

Stephen, I suggest you re-read this entire thread as it is replete with examples of will not referring to future time. They may not be the majority of uses, but that's neither here nor there. The evidence simply does not back you up.

The question we should be asking is "Is there a common meaning running through all uses of will"? The answer is "Yes, but it ain't future time". It's something along the lines of "Based on what I know, this is what I expect to be the case". That's about as close as I can get. It may not be a perfect explanation, but at least I don't have to resort to dismissing the works of respected writers such as Mr Bryson when their use of the language doesn't fit my explanations.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 9:35 am

Of course this thread is full of examples of will not referring to future time. Even most of my examples don't refer to future time. The reason is we are looking at an original example that doesn't referr to futute tiem.

If the original example did refer to the future then things would be different.

The evidence simply does not back you up

What evidence, and what the heck is the point I'm supposed to be making that needs backing up?

The question we should be asking is "Is there a common meaning running through all uses of will"?

Why? The question should be "is the use of will in Bryson's sentence good English" and the answer is probably not. I completely fail to understand this insistence that you and Larry have to try and squeeze the language into a simplified theory. The only explanation I can come across is that it giives more kudos to be able to give a single explanation, especially wnen couched so vaguely that nobody can be bothered to see if its true or not, than to simply accept that words develop different meanings according to necessity, usage and fancy.

The answer is "Yes, but it ain't future time". It's something along the lines of "Based on what I know, this is what I expect to be the case". That's about as close as I can get.

This phrase is so vacuous as to be meaningless. And it goes nowhere to explaining why we use "will" in some cases and another constrution in another. Moreover, by refusing to accept other partial ways of explaining you are making it nearly impossible to explain the use of "will"

but at least I don't have to resort to dismissing the works of respected writers such as Mr Bryson when their use of the language doesn't fit my explanations.

Mixed tenses are a common mistake. Siure they are more common with George Bush and John Major than with Bill Bryson, but we would not be able to construct any sort of grammatical stucture if we accepted every Bushism or every Junior High School student's essays. The reason they come about is that the writer doesn't keep his eyes on the ball. Writing, he takes a break, loses the thread, and shifts his time scheme, When he puts the consitituent parts in the sentence he no longer is aware of the disjunction.

Lastly, I am not saying the sentence is wrong because it doesn't fit my explanation. I am giving the explanation because the sentence sounds wrong and I am trying to explain why.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 9:48 am

.will expresses a connection (in the user's momentary judgment) between two sets of data: a first set representing what he knows about an event at the present moment, with a second set which he believes is probably true, based on what he knows now, but about which he cannot be certain because of obvious circumstances.

Are you seriously telling me that this is the explanation fo the use of 'will' in sentences such as
"Give me the books: I'll carry them"
"Will you open the window?"
"I won't do it!"

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 4:40 pm

You ask what I mean by evidence. Us linguists are in the fortunate sitation of being surrounded by evidence to test our theories (unlike scientists, who require billions spent on telescopes, particle accelerators, etc but I digress). The evidence I speak of, Stephen, is language all around us, and more pertinently the examples of use of will posted in this thread.

OK, so let's take the hypothesis that will refers to future time and test it against some evidence:

Mike will be in the airport at 10 tomorrow - Future; so far so good, the hypothesis holds.
Mike will be in the airport by now - This sentence is about as Present as you can get.

In fact, without the time references, there is no way of knowing whether or not the fragment Mike will be in the airport refers to present or future time without some extra contextual cue.

If future time were a primary semantic characteristic of the modal will, we would not need extra contextual cues to ascertain which time was being referred to. Since we clearly do need this information, one is forced to draw the following conclusion:

Future time is not a primary semantic characteristic of will

Q.E.D.

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 4:52 pm

lolwhites wrote:You ask what I mean by evidence.

Mike will be in the airport at 10 tomorrow - Future; so far so good, the hypothesis holds.
Mike will be in the airport by now - This sentence is about as Present as you can get.

In fact, without the time references, there is no way of knowing whether or not the fragment Mike will be in the airport refers to present or future time without some extra contextual cue.

If future time were a primary semantic characteristic of the modal will, we would not need extra contextual cues to ascertain which time was being referred to. Since we clearly do need this information, one is forced to draw the following conclusion:

Future time is not a primary semantic characteristic of will

Q.E.D.

I really enjoy reading all the posts on this topic and others in this forum, although I really don't think I have much to add other than my native speaker intuition. (It's been a very long time since I've engaged in formal linguistics repartee--think back to Chomsky's first iterations of transformational grammar

) I do note, however, that I would probably take the meaning of the example, Mike will be in the airport by now and use Mike should be at the airport by now. instead. Aren't modals fun?

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 7:25 pm

Are you seriously telling me that this is the explanation fo the use of 'will' in sentences such as
"Give me the books: I'll carry them"
"Will you open the window?"
"I won't do it!"

Without a doubt!

The explanation lolwhites and I are offering is hardly meaningless nor vacuous. It is flexible, and it offers a single, unified underpinning for all uses of will. That is not something of small significance, because it offers students a way out of the confusing, confounding catalog of references to what appears to them to be endless possibilities, each of which must be memorized and learned separately. This is exactly the kind of thing which leaves students feeling that English is so hard. It is why students study our language for years and years without ever developing a sense of fluency or accuracy. If we can give them simple principles about what certain features of the language mean and how they are used, they will be able to accept that context can provide a variety of particular interpretations. That is what is going on here.

Larry Latham

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Sun Apr 04, 2004 7:35 pm

Hi Lorikeet,

I would probably take the meaning of the example, Mike will be in the airport by now and use Mike should be at the airport by now instead.

Ahhh, now you've gotten into the really hard stuff! Should is one of the messier of the bunch. You hit it right on the head when you said:

Aren't modals fun?

How right you are.

Larry Latham

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 3:35 pm

Well, perhaps the reason he persists is because of statements like this:
Quote:
Future time is certainly one of its main semantic charactersistics

Lolwhite's point is that future time is not a semantic characteristic of will. It frequently is a logical interpretation of particular wills in particular contexts, but that is not will's fundamental meaning.

I've actually looked at every posting I have made in this thread and can't find the one Larry is taking umbrage at.

And note please lolwhites that "one of its main semantic characteristics" is not the same as "its primary semantic characteristic". That in itself leaves your argument meaningless.

Take the sentence He'll catch the plane. I maintain that it can only be taken to refer to the future. On the other hand you are right with the example using "will be". The reason is that
He will be at the airport by now
is similar in meaning to
He'll have caught the plane by now
and that we can't say
He'll catch the plane by now.Wrong

You are setting up straw men here and then knocking them down all by yourself.

Now where I do disagree with both of you is firstly that there is "a fundalmental meaning" of will in the first place, and even more so that this nebulous fundamental meaning has nothing to do with etymology. "will" had the meaning of volition and is still used as a main verb with that sense. The other meanings of will diverged from that, just as the meanings of can have diverged from the OE "ken" meaning to know (think of the song "Do you ken John Peel?").

Now I don't think it is much use to take the fundamental meaning of can or will from its Germanic roots, but it certainly makes more sense that searching for some Platonic form that has come about by some kind of spontaneous generation.

Now, I am still waiting for Larry to show how his "fundamental" meaning of "will" explains the examples I give.

If we can give them simple principles about what certain features of the language mean and how they are used, they will be able to accept that context can provide a variety of particular interpretations. That is what is going on here.

Very noble Larry, but chimeric. A zoology teacher would love to give fundamental descriptons of life forms, but unfortunatlely, unlike "Us linguists", they have to pay more than lip service to the evidence around them.

The reason the majority of granmatical textbooks give at least four or five different classifications of the use of will or can is that those uses cannot meaningfully be reduced any further. Leave the search for the Philosopher's Stone to Harry Potter.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:30 pm

And note please lolwhites that "one of its main semantic characteristics" is not the same as "its primary semantic characteristic". That in itself leaves your argument meaningless.

Steven, you will insist on splitting hairs (not a future reference); if Future time were a "main" semantic characteristic, one would still expect "Mike will be at the airport" to be taken to mean Future time without additional contextual clues. It isn't. Period.

Take the sentence He'll catch the plane. I maintain that it can only be taken to refer to the future. On the other hand you are right with the example using "will be". The reason is that
He will be at the airport by now
is similar in meaning to
He'll have caught the plane by now
and that we can't say
He'll catch the plane by now.Wrong

Here I agree that can only refer to the future, but that is down to the semantics of catch a plane, as opposed to be at the airport. It's still the combination of will with other parts of the sentence which give us the future reference; again, context is the key (as I've always said).
It's true that He will be at the airport by now is similar in meaning to
He'll have caught the plane by now (unless he is getting off the plane), but that's not why it refers to present time. The reason for that is the meaning of will. It's short for saying "Given what I know (e.g. the plane arrival time), I expect him to be at the airport". That's what will means.

I could quote sentences in Present Simple or Present Continuous which referred to future time. Is that an argument for saying future time is a "main semantic characteristic" of Present Simple or Present Continuous? Why, then, do you persist is using that argument for will?

The reason the majority of granmatical textbooks give at least four or five different classifications of the use of will or can is that those uses cannot meaningfully be reduced any further

Not so. Fundamental meanings are often quite difficult to explain in a foreign language as they can be rather "existential". It's quite legitimate to explain the "trees" and leave out the "wood" in these circumstances, especially when we wouldn't introduce a student to every single possible use of a tense, aspect or modal unless we completely wanted to bamboozle them.

You are setting up straw men here and then knocking them down all by yourself.

Again, not so. I'm using examples from English to show that will by itself is not the future, but that future meaning comes from the context and not just the presence of will. I fail to grasp why you find that proposition so unreasonable.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 6:29 pm

lolwhites has so ably stated his position, and his coincides so well with mine, that there's no reason for me to add anything here, except that I have not taken umbrage at anything, Stephen. I'm not in the least bit angry...only surprised that anyone as obviously smart as you are will resist a reasonable argument as much as you do here(also not a future reference). It seems you're locked into a groove, and refuse to look at another explanation which might have some advantages for teaching.

Larry Latham

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 8:44 pm

Steven, you will insist on splitting hairs (not a future reference);

It's not a question of splitting hairs. 'Primary' suggests number one; 'one of its main' allows for others of equal importance.

were a "main" semantic characteristic, one would still expect "Mike will be at the airport" to be taken to mean Future time without additional contextual clues.

Why should we expect the future meaning to be taken instead of one of the other "main" meanings, such as the result of logical deduction, or a prediction, or a promise, to name just three?

I could quote sentences in Present Simple or Present Continuous which referred to future time. Is that an argument for saying future time is a "main semantic characteristic" of Present Simple or Present Continuous?

For the Present Continuous yes. Indeed I would say thar referring to the future is the most common use of the Present Continuous.

Why, then, do you persist is using that argument for will?

What do you mean by 'persist'. It's you and Larry that have bought it up in this thread.

Fundamental meanings are often quite difficult to explain in a foreign language as they can be rather "existential"

I don't believe the "fundamental" meanings you refer to are "existential" . Quite the oppposite - I don't believe they exist at all.

I'm using examples from English to show that will by itself is not the future, but that future meaning comes from the context and not just the presence of will. I fail to grasp why you find that proposition so unreasonable.

I don't find that proposition at all unreasonable. I am in total agreement with it. What I fail to grasp is why you think anyting different.

It seems you're locked into a groove, and refuse to look at another explanation which might have some advantages for teaching.

Not in the least Larry. I am still awaiting your explanation of how your "fundamental" meaning of 'will' ties up with the examples I gave. And lolwhites has been kind enough to give me another example -

Steven, you will insist on splitting hairs

'will' used to express the speaker's annoyance at the addressee's perceived wilful perverse persisitence.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:56 pm

The use of the past immediately before and afterwards mandates the use of 'would' both on grammatical and stylistic grounds.[/quote]

Do you see would only as the past of will?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:47 pm

This is one of your perpetual hobbyhorses Larry and every time you ride it you fall down at the first fence.
There is a subtle difference between the sentences, and it has nothing to do with what you state. The second statement implies that she runs fast habitually, and the first one merely states that she is able to run fast. The speakers opinion is no more present in the first than the second, and it's only because you are trying to squeeze the language into your, or Lewis's ?, theory, that you come up with the suggestion.[/quote]

In the situation that "can" is being used in its dynamic (and not epistemic or deontic) sense, you are correct. That is of course if we are both observing her and we agree on what is meant by "fast" (pragmatics) or that we trust the speaker. Taken at face, there is no subjectivity in the sentence "She can run very fast". It also does not refer back to the speaker, is more subject-oriented. Unless, of course, the speaker is not indicating what he is saying as a fact but:

i) that he is speculating about it

(ii) that he is presenting it as a deduction

(iii) that he has been told about it

(iv) that it is a matter only of appearance, based on the evidence of (possibly fallible) senses.

What about:

Steve guarantees that she can run very fast.

She can run very fast.

With the second sentence, unless we were observing her in action, how would the listener know whether the speaker is giving second hand information or not?

And how often does this occur.

Steve: I think she's a very fast runner, but I'm not certain.

Reported later by me: She can run very fast. Steve said so.

It is also a jump to say that the speaker's opinion is not involved if one doesn't know the source of information or has personally witnessed the ability.

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 11:29 pm

Ack! Do you have to write in bold so big? It sounds like you are shouting and I can't read it. (But I can wonder at my reaction. Been on the net too long--all caps has the same effect :p)

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:03 am

Lorikeet wrote:Ack! Do you have to write in bold so big? It sounds like you are shouting and I can't read it. (But I can wonder at my reaction. Been on the net too long--all caps has the same effect :p)

You may have considered that some of us here do not have the same sight capabilities as you!