DOES ENGLISH HAVE FUTURE TENSE?

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:36 am

One may argue we have three kinds of time: past, present, and future. But as time is shifting fast -- very fast -- we can experience only two kinds of time: past and future. If we can now count the speed by milliseconds, it means time is fast enough to measure that. But if the present time is faster than one millisecond, how possibly can anyone experience it? Therefore we actually are aware of only two kinds of time: past and future. As time goes by, today we call them past and present. So it is difficult to say whether or not we have future tense. The question is, how do you define the future time? We are forever living at the so-called future time. As a whole, we call what we are sure of as present, thus using present tense. What we aren't sure of is future, thus taking future tense (auxiliaries).

My own silly opinion.

If you can define the future time in a better way, I accept your definition.

Xui

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:09 am

Again, I like it, I like it. To those who say "properly speaking English has only two tenses, past and present" we could say this. The present is fleeting, we cannot really refer to it. Present simple merely refers to an abstract. Present continuous refers to the past and the future. We use past tenses to refer to the past, and we use "will", on occasion, to refer to the future.

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:37 am

woodcutter wrote: We use past tenses to refer to the past, and we use "will", on occasion, to refer to the future.
==================

I am afraid we can use any auxiliary to refer to the future, which stands for only something not so sure. To nibble at only one or two auxiliaries will be highly insufficient. When something is not sure, we can use any one of them:
Ex: It shall/will/must/may/should/would/ought to/can rain tomorrow.

The question is, why do we have so many auxiliaries to help express the future?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:39 am

The question is, why do we have so many auxiliaries to help express the future?

All of the modals can be used to comment on the present or the past as well.

Incidentally Shun, I am tickled by
It shall rain tomorrow.
How much better for humanity if I could only get it to work

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 10:14 am

As to my comment: "The question is, why do we have so many auxiliaries to help express the future?", you wrote:

Stephen Jones wrote: All of the modals can be used to comment on the present or the past as well.

Incidentally Shun, I am tickled by
It shall rain tomorrow.
How much better for humanity if I could only get it to work
================================

Though I agree with you, but we still have to know about the basic use of modal verbs (auxiliaries), without laughing. Even children have to learn to accept the tickle:

Key Stage 3 -- Wordswork!
PROBABILITY

Modal verbs are those which combine with other verbs to give an idea about the likelihood of events happening. E.g. “It could rain tomorrow” means it may or may or not rain.

Put these statements in order of the most probable event. Start with the least likely.
It may rain tomorrow.
It might rain tomorrow.
It must rain tomorrow.
It will rain tomorrow.
It shall rain tomorrow.
It could rain tomorrow.
It should rain tomorrow.

Can you make up your own statements which use the words may, might, must, will, shall, could, should and put them in order of probability? What about can and would? These are harder modal verbs to use in this way.

http://www.thelighthouseforeducation.co ... ous/12.htm

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 10:23 am

Stephen Jones wrote: All of the modals can be used to comment on the present or the past as well.
================================

I was just wondering why there are so many helping verbs? Why not just shall and will, if you know what I mean.

If we can answer this question, we will have a better understanding about the use of the modal verbs.

revel · Post by **revel** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:37 am

Why are there so many helping verbs?

Because English is like that.

peace,
revel.

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:03 pm

revel wrote:Why are there so many helping verbs?

Because English is like that.
=======================

Dear Revel,

You are correct. I wholly agree with you.

But I guess there is another small reason. Every modal verb has its lexical meaning. For example, can expresses ability:
Ex: He can jump seven feet high.
When its lexical meaning is working in some sentences, it cannot work also as a helping verb to help express probability. At this time, we have to use another helping verb to serve the purpose:
Ex: He may jump seven feet high.
I guess this is a small reason for us to prepare a few modal verbs in store.

Likewise, may can sometimes be busy at the lexical performance:
Ex: You may go now.
So we may choose another one to express probability:
Ex: You shall go now.

Finally, shall and will happen to be the ones that have the most leisure time to help. So they are most usually regarded as the future tense, a probability. Nevertheless, one will still argue that, in any one sentence, can a helping verb totally get rid of the lexical meaning? This leads grammarians to conclude that there is no pure future tense. This is at least the opinion of Otto Jespersen, agreed with those of the contemporary grammarians.

However, some learners have mistaken this conclusion, and claim Jespersen concluded there is no future tense, as was quoted in the initial message of this thread:
Ex: the authors state: "...there is no future tense in English... there are two tenses in English: present and past. ...but nothing that we can describe as future tense" thus repeating the well known point of view formulated by O. Jespersen and other representatives of American Descriptive Linguistics.

As far as I know, however, he didn't mention that. He just concluded there is no pure future tense.

Xui

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 10:10 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:
All of the modals can be used to comment on the present or the past as well.
=======================

I am sorry, I guess I have missed this point. Yes, you are very correct. All of the modals can do that, also referring to the past, but in the perfective:
Ex: Yesterday he would have seen his boss.

However, I guess you were asking that when we refer to the past, shall we call it future tense? Am I correct? To tell the truth, if I haven't discussed about this before, I could hardly see the implication from your "orphan" sentence. Still, I may have got your idea incorrectly, then we may cancel this message.

It is very difficult to answer your question in a simple way. To do so, we have to have a common agreement on how to define future time. But I don't know your opinion at all. If I have missed it, please send a hint again.

I would like to say the following, with respect, in the supposition that we have the same agreement similar to mine. That is, we actually cannot experience the exact present. We nowadays just substitute the present for the future. We use Simple Present to say something we are sure of. We use modals to express our doubt, a probability. Then please remember, in the following, the present means the future.

I will change our supposition when you post your definition of the future time.

===============

Now we express a doubt of the past:
Ex: Yesterday he would have seen his boss.
May I ask, it is a doubt in the past, or a doubt at the present? This is the point.

In my opinion, it is a present doubt about the past. It is not a past doubt of ours. Only can the actor in the story book express a past doubt. In such situations, the author has to note something like "he thought, he supposed" in the context. But if the author puts it in reported speech, then it is a present doubt of the actor, dispensing with the perfective:
Ex: Yesterday she thought he would see his boss.
On the other hand, our own doubt of the past is not in the past, but at the present time! It follows that, yes, we use modals to comment on the past, but the comment is a present comment.

Now we may come back to our agreement: present is actually future. That is to say, the following comment CAN be a future comment about the past.
Ex: Yesterday he would have seen his boss.
Moreover, every sentence is supposed to have a tense. It follows that it is still a future tense.

If I have made a mistake, please point out.

================
How to explain to young students? I just suppose that we have past, present, and future. And it is only a present doubt about the past:
Ex: Yesterday he would have seen his boss.

When they grow up, we may enter something rather complicated. This is why I have hinted and asked, in my second message of this thread, "I am interested to know at which stage shall a student change his attitude, from admitting (a future) to denying?"

The fact that we provide the future tense for young students, and later we admit there is no future tense, is evident and widely known. If we know the truth, we must agree there is no simple solutions.

Xui

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:58 pm

I cannot accept that "will" is always a nuanced future, only that it is a restricted one.

An ungrammatical "He go tomorrow" and the sentence "He will go tomorrow" are trying to express exactly the same thing.

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:35 am

woodcutter wrote:I cannot accept that "will" is always a nuanced future, only that it is a restricted one.

An ungrammatical "He go tomorrow" and the sentence "He will go tomorrow" are trying to express exactly the same thing.

I guess you are correct. But I cannot compare an ungrammatical with a grammatical one.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:35 pm

Xui wrote:DOES ENGLISH HAVE FUTURE TENSE?

Futurity is expressed either by tense-aspect combinations and contextual information (e.g. the plane is leaving at 14:35), or by modal verbs and the infinitive (e.g. must + progressive infinitive: We must be leaving soon). The forms presented as ‘Future tenses’ in ELT materials are the combinations with will.

http://www.gabrielatos.com/TTA.htm

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:43 pm

Futurity is expressed either by tense-aspect combinations and contextual information (e.g. the plane is leaving at 14:35), or by modal verbs and the infinitive (e.g. must + progressive infinitive: We must be leaving soon). The forms presented as ‘Future tenses’ in ELT materials are the combinations with will.

http://www.gabrielatos.com/TTA.htm

Futurity can also be expressed with "be to" which is essentially the infinitive of purpose. This is often used with contextual info but doesn't have to be.

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:51 pm

Metal56 and Patterson,

As I explained at the top of this page, we can only experience past and future. As time goes by, we regard them as past and present. What we look upon as present is actually future.

Then may I ask, which one thing in tense that expresses present cannot express future?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:12 pm

Andrew Patterson wrote:
Futurity is expressed either by tense-aspect combinations and contextual information (e.g. the plane is leaving at 14:35), or by modal verbs and the infinitive (e.g. must + progressive infinitive: We must be leaving soon). The forms presented as ‘Future tenses’ in ELT materials are the combinations with will.

http://www.gabrielatos.com/TTA.htm
Futurity can also be expressed with "be to" which is essentially the infinitive of purpose. This is often used with contextual info but doesn't have to be.

Yes:

He is to leave at six.

Teacher Discussion Forums

DOES ENGLISH HAVE FUTURE TENSE?

Why?

Re: DOES ENGLISH HAVE FUTURE TENSE?