Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004

One can, of course, claim anything -- that the Earth is flat, that
rivers flow upstream, that the sun rises in the west.  A claim that
the form "will + infinitive" is "the future tense" is quite modest
by comparison.

I think they say that you need an inflection to have a separate
tense -- which may be your point restated; I'm not sure.  By this
standard English has only two tenses, present and simple past.  It
also has aspects, moods, etc.

It's a modal auxiliary.  I believe it started out as a verb with
full inflection, of which "will" was the infinitive and the present
tense, but lost many of its forms over the years.

First of all, we know that's not what happened.  Second (despite
your request, this point cannot be ignored), the auxiliary "will"
does not always indicate simple futurity.  Third, futurity can be
indicated by constructions other than will + infinitive.

The first point should be obvious.  As to the second, consider "I
*will* lose fifty pounds this year."  That's not a statement of
futurity; it's a statement of determination.  It differs in degree
from something like "The sun will rise in the east tomorrow," which
is simple futurity, at least in my book.  And as to the third,
consider "The sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow." That's
simple futurity expressed in the form of the present progressive.

If there existed a specific inflected verb form to indicate simple
futurity, I'd say -- and, more to the point, I think linguists would
say -- that that form was the future tense.  But since the line is
drawn between true inflected forms and forms with modals, you've
only proven the point you're contesting.

I might add that phrases like "future tense," in casual use anyway,
don't discomfit me at all.  We don't all have to act like linguists
all the time (and you can probably find some linguists who dissent
from the predominant view).  Unless there's some important reason to
define terms, anything that can be understood seems fine to me.
"Future tense" is easily understood in casual use.

Much else.  But I'm probably over my head already.

I am going to essentially restate what Bob said, but slightly
differently.  

This question is merely a matter of definition.  Do we define "tense"
as an inflectional category, i.e. shown by changing the form of the
verb, or do we define it as a semantic category, such that a verb
phrase expressing futurity is defined as being in the "future tense".
You can find support for both sorts of definitions, but modern
linguists tend to favor the inflectional definition.

The problem with the semantic definition is that English has various
ways to express time sense.  Consider these:

(1) I will run tomorrow.
(2) I am going to run tomorrow.
(3) I run tomorrow.

These all say pretty much the same thing.  Why do we classify (1) as
being in the future tense and the other two as something else,
whatever that might be?

Compare, also, these:

(1) I will run tomorrow.
(4) I might run tomorrow.

Both use similar syntax, with a verb phrase consisting of a modal
auxiliary and "run".  What tense is (4) in?  It is a future
conditional, so presumably it is future tense, if we grant the
existence of the creature in English.  So where is the "will" which,
we are told, is part of the future tense?  Apparently there are other,
possibly many other, ways of expressing the future tense.  

None of this would matter if it weren't that English does have thes
inflectional present and past tenses, and that there is a plethora of
ways of conveying the sense of present and past.  If we insist on
combining the inflectional and the semantic senses of "tense" we end
up with a muddle, using the same word to describe unrelated phenomena.
It is much more parsimonious to simply use different words for the
different phenomena.

A related discussion by Professor Lawler can be found at
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/tense.html.

Richard R. Hershberger

Many reasons.  The other respondents have already made some excellent
points, but perhaps I can add something.

First, English has only two tenses, the past tense and the other one.
These two form a tight system.  In particular, they are mutually
exclusive: the presence of one bars the presence of the other.  And
there is no third term in the system which is likewise mutually
exclusive with these two.

Second, English has a huge number of ways of talking about future
time, each one of them expressing a particular view of the future.
All of these forms are "present-tense", and there is no justification
for singling out one of them and calling it a "future tense".

Here is a sample.

 Susie is flying to London tomorrow.
 Susie flies to London tomorrow.
 Susie is going to fly to London tomorrow.
 Susie is to fly to London tomorrow.
 Susie has to fly to London tomorrow.
 Susie will fly to London tomorrow.
 Susie will be flying to London tomorrow.
 Susie is supposed to fly to London tomorrow.

And so on.  There are more.  These forms are not interchangeable: each
has its own functions.  And there is no earthly justification for
picking out one of them and calling it a future tense.

The form in 'will' has several functions.  With a first-person
subject, it most often expresses an offer or a promise:

 I'll wash the dishes.
 I'll buy you a teddy-bear.

But, as Bob Lieblich points out, a *stressed* 'will' here expresses
determination.

With a third-person subject, it typically expresses a prediction or a
surmise:

 The Orioles will win the pennant.
 House prices will surely fall this year.
 [on hearing the doorbell] That will be Susie.

This account does not exhaust the functions of 'will'.  But note that
'will' can be used only in its established functions.  It cannot be
used freely in speaking of the future, because the other forms exist
and must be used when appropriate.

Foreign learners of English who have been badly taught sometimes speak
English like this:

 What will you do tonight?
 I will go to the pub.

And this is not English.

Here's another learner's error:

 When Susie will get here, we'll eat.

Another point.  Just like any other present-tense form, 'will' is
subject to sequence of tenses:

 Susie says that she is coming.
 Susie said that she was coming.

 Susie says that she will come.
 Susie said that she would come.

If you pretend that 'will' is a future tense, no coherent account of
these facts is possible.

Only in English, and not in general.

It is.

This is surreal.  The item 'will' cannot be considered an ending
because it is not an ending.

One final point.  We cannot consider 'will' in isolation.  It belongs
to a set of items, the modal auxiliaries, all of which exhibit
essentially identical behavior.  Ripping 'will' out of the class of
items it obviously belongs to is rather like ripping the preposition
'in' out of the class of prepositions and claiming that it is a
locative case.

Larry Trask
larryt@sussex.ac.uk

In alt.english.usage on 9 Jan 2004 14:26:24 -0800
rolleston@onetel.net.uk (rolleston) posted:

That's pretty much the way I look at it.

s/ meirman    If you are emailing me please  
say if you are posting the same response.

Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
            Indianapolis,   7 years
            Chicago,        6 years
            Brooklyn NY    12 years
            Baltimore      20 years