4 ms·
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 intere
by 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.