Tense is used for more than just time.

1 2 3
   Share on Facebook  
Roro  #110643  Sun, 19 Jun 05 05:05 PM
Hi milky,
You may be right, but I think I'm not wrong, too. I'd like to make some quote from Ö. Dahl's Tense and Aspect Systems (1985:102-106):


Future time reference
Before going into a discussion of the ways in which languages refer to the future, let us note that the future differs epistemologically??from the present and the past, as Aristotle noted. We cannot perceive the future directly or "remember" it??at least, this is what conventional wisdom tells us. (..)

Normally, when we talk about the future, we are either talking about someone's plans, intentions or obligation, or we are making a prediction or extrapolation from the present state of the world. As a direct consequence, a sentence which refers to the future will almost always differ also modally from a sentence with non-future time reference. This is the reasonwhy the distinction between tense and mood becomes blurred when it comes to the future. (..)

Semantics of (grammatical forms of) Future
It seems fairly clear from the data (..) that the most typical uses of Future involve actions that are planned by the agent of the sentence. (..) Notice, on one hand, that "intention" more often than not is no necessary condition on the use of Future: in the majority of cases, Future can also be used for cases where the intentional element is lacking. If we have a sentence expressing intention but with no element of prediction, i.e. where the speaker takes no stand on whether the action will take place or not, it does not generally seem possible to use Future.

We thus see that "Future time reference" is a more constant element of Future??relatively speaking!??than the modal features of this category, which in most cases may or may not be present. "Future time reference" could therefore be regarded as a dominant feature of (the grammatical forms of) Future. (..) The traditional view of the Future as a tense can be thus defended.


It seems, for Dahl, [a prediction or extrapolation from the present state of the world] ˜ [Future time reference].

Probably our difference is only in terminology..?
  
Top 150 Contributor
Joined on Mon, Apr 11 2005
Regular Member (581)
milky  #110802  Mon, 20 Jun 05 09:47 AM
And I agree with Dahl on everything, but in the world of fortunetelling things are different.



In fortunetelling, the future is fixed, so non-modal. Is is fact - if one believes in fortunetelling that is.
  
Top 50 Contributor
Joined on Thu, Jan 15 2004
Senior Member (3,149)
Hume said that if we had perfect or complete descriptive knowledge of reality, we could not, by reasoning, derive a single valid "ought".
Roro  #110819  Mon, 20 Jun 05 10:22 AM
Hi milky,
You mean ... a fortuneteller sees another future worlds along the time axis ?
Yes, then there should not be any modal meaning.

And this is what I wanted to say in the first place. We can talk freely about things which does not exist yet (i.e. in this case we are imagining some distinct world, distinct from present world).

We can imagine also the world of particular future time. We can say freely or something like that. It's, too, of Future tense.

Would you agree, milky?
  
milky  #110841  Mon, 20 Jun 05 11:02 AM
I agree.
  
Roro  #110859  Mon, 20 Jun 05 12:06 PM
Thank you milky, I feel rewarded :)
  
TS  #115361  Mon, 04 Jul 05 11:36 PM
The problem here is, I think, we don't know how to define present and future. Are they definable?
  
Not Ranked
Joined on Fri, Jun 4 2004
New Member (24)
MrPedantic  #115368  Tue, 05 Jul 05 12:17 AM

 I don't disagree with the analysis of the graphic present, etc. in this thread.

But may we not also say that the fortune-teller uses the present tense not because the future, from her point of view, is 'fixed'; but because she is reporting what she literally sees in her mind or crystal ball?

Cf. the use of the present progressive in the hypnotist's patter:

"You are getting very sleepy...you are falling asleep...you are sinking into a great white pillow...Now, when I click my fingers, you will open your eyes. {click} Now, you are very, very warm...so warm, in fact, that you must take off your clothes..."

MrP

  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004
Veteran Member (12,168)
Proficient SpeakerSystemAdministrator
...opella forensis / adducit febris...
viognier  #115522  Tue, 05 Jul 05 12:16 PM
Hi all

Hi TS. As you said, we don't know how to define present and future. But we can strictly define a grammatical category [tense], in terms of morphology. A grammatical category consists of a paradigmatic opposition of morphological forms. Thus we can define [past tense], [present tense] and [future tense], theoretically.
(I'm not sure if I explain my opinion clear enough or not. If you're interested in it, I'd like to quote more clear definition next time.)

The discussion went around the question: how we should define the semantics of the "simple present form" vs. the "will+infinitive form." That is, the question was whether we can describe the semantics of "will+infinitive form" as [future tense] or not, I guess.

The former and the latter questions are intertwined, but I think we can discuss them from both sides.
-------------------------------------------
Hi MrPedantic
It's interesting.
I'm inclined, however, to distinguish first of all the semantics of the present progressive from that of the simple present tense (of reportive usage). It's not easy, although the difference seems obvious intuitively. So it seems you brought forward another difficult question..!

viognier
  
Not Ranked
Joined on Tue, Jul 5 2005
Junior Member (76)
1 2 3
AddThis Feed Button RSS Feed: ESL Linguistics Discussion Forum
© 2008 MediaCET Ltd.
Terms and Conditions & Terms of Service