DOES ENGLISH HAVE FUTURE TENSE?

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:28 pm

Yes metal , but my point was that "be to" does not require a context (by which I understood time expression) although it does usually have one.

Although perhaps a tad old fashioned, it can be used for literary effect:

eg "They say I am to be executed." "Is it true?"

What I am saying is that "be to" is a 3rd way of expressing future that does not rely on modal verbs or time expressions but existential purpose.

Even when it has a time expression, the time expression mearly clarifies the exact time rather than being the indicator of futurity.

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:07 am

Andrew I am afraid you have confused a few things here. Do "am to" imply purpose? I can't see it.

What kind of purpose is this?
> eg "They say I am to be executed." "Is it true?"
What you wanted to say is actually the meaning of the sentence. Don't put everything on the tense, that is, "am to".

Also, there are differences in using modal verbs and ordinary Simple Present to denote future time.
"Am to" in Simple Present refers to the present time. "Was to" in Simple Past refers to the past.
But both Will and Would refer to the present time. To refer to the past, you have to use perfective: would have been, etc.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:02 am

The purpose is actually "to be".

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:19 am

Andrew Patterson wrote:The purpose is actually "to be".

What kind of purpose is this?
> eg "They say I am to be executed." "Is it true?"

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:53 pm

Xui wrote:What kind of purpose is this?
> eg "They say I am to be executed." "Is it true?"

1) A very laudable one
2) Hopefully!

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:00 pm

You and Andy should become a double act, SJ!