4 ms·

> There is no unit of English syntax which (i) behaves like a verb and (ii) has a distinct future form. This seems like an arbitrary and peculiar way to define

> There is no unit of English syntax which (i) behaves like a verb and (ii) has a distinct future form. This seems like an arbitrary and peculiar way to define tense specifically to exclude periphrastic languages like English. If these are the rules by which we are arguing, the argument doesn't seem that interesting. By this argument colloquial French and German have no past tense because they use periphrastic constructions to expression this distinction.

foldr 8y ago
It is indeed the case that (spoken) French and German have no past tense, strictly speaking. (I don't speak German, so I don't know to exactly what extent the German imperfect is unused in everyday speech. I think it may not be as unused as the passé simple in French.) Tense is a piece of technical terminology with a particular definition. There's nothing very peculiar about the definition that I can see. The definition denies English a future tense because English doesn't have periphrastic units which (i) behave like verbs and (ii) have a distinct future form. For whatever reason, people are really resistant to taking linguists' word for it on what technical terms within linguistics mean. You don't find people on here trying to argue with physicists about whether they should maybe adopt a different definition of "force" or "mass" or "electron".
- DFHippie 8y ago
  It's not a question of taking linguists' word for it. It's a question of taking particular linguists' word for it. The discussion in that language log is interesting. You will notice that it isn't simply people calling "amen". Certain things are settled: "will" in English behaves like other English auxiliary verb (setting aside those cases where it doesn't, as in contractions). Saying "English has no future tense", though, is settled only within the confines of a particular linguistic model with a particular technical definition of the term "tense", of which there are many.
  - foldr 8y ago
    >is settled only within the confines of a particular linguistic model with a particular technical definition of the term "tense", of which there are many. Could you then provide a reference to a linguist arguing that English has a future tense (in the usual syntactic/morphological sense of the term)? I'm baffled by the reference to the "confines of a particular linguistic model". Linguists who can agree on hardly anything else (and linguists are pretty good at disagreeing!) can agree that English lacks a future tense.

foldr 8y ago

It is indeed the case that (spoken) French and German have no past tense, strictly speaking. (I don't speak German, so I don't know to exactly what extent the German imperfect is unused in everyday speech. I think it may not be as unused as the passé simple in French.) Tense is a piece of technical terminology with a particular definition. There's nothing very peculiar about the definition that I can see. The definition denies English a future tense because English doesn't have periphrastic units which (i) behave like verbs and (ii) have a distinct future form. For whatever reason, people are really resistant to taking linguists' word for it on what technical terms within linguistics mean. You don't find people on here trying to argue with physicists about whether they should maybe adopt a different definition of "force" or "mass" or "electron".

DFHippie 8y ago
It's not a question of taking linguists' word for it. It's a question of taking particular linguists' word for it. The discussion in that language log is interesting. You will notice that it isn't simply people calling "amen". Certain things are settled: "will" in English behaves like other English auxiliary verb (setting aside those cases where it doesn't, as in contractions). Saying "English has no future tense", though, is settled only within the confines of a particular linguistic model with a particular technical definition of the term "tense", of which there are many.
- foldr 8y ago
  >is settled only within the confines of a particular linguistic model with a particular technical definition of the term "tense", of which there are many. Could you then provide a reference to a linguist arguing that English has a future tense (in the usual syntactic/morphological sense of the term)? I'm baffled by the reference to the "confines of a particular linguistic model". Linguists who can agree on hardly anything else (and linguists are pretty good at disagreeing!) can agree that English lacks a future tense.