Quote:
Originally Posted by shun 
I am afraid you have twisted the meaning of the statement. We share the same future time, the same present time, and the same past time. |
I haven't read the whole thread, much of it, perused some of it but this is as good a place to start as any.
Let me suggest, [because I didn't carefully read all] that y'all are confusing time and tense.
First off, no, English does NOT have a future tense. Again, traditional/prescriptive [not always the same thing] grammar not only analysed it badly from the outset but the problem with those branches is that they continued to do so over so many generations.
English has many ways to discuss the future but there's no future tense.
Examples of ways to discuss the future:
present simple [sometimes]; will; shall; be going to; present continuous for the future; would; may; might; should; shall; could; can; want to; need to; have to; must; ought to; probably/likely + modal verb; almost certainly + modal verb; ...
+++++++++++++++++++
Shun, you're right, we do "share the same future time, the same present time, and the same past time", but our different languages don't share the same conception of those time parameters as they relate to language structure.
One millisecond ahead of now can be described by any number of "tenses" [even the past tense FORM] and it is in fact described by both the "future" tenses, one example, 'will' and also by verbs of the present simple.
What differs is the mental picture each sets out in an ENLs head. So both are involved in that time sequence but for the present simple, it entails not only that millisecond into the future but also, a future that wiil extend into the forseeable future and it also often encompasses the past, at least thru implication.
The crucial thing is that that action involved is seen as a repeated, routine, always, general, normal type of action, NOT a one time event. This is the crucial difference between simple present and 'future' collocations.
"I brush my teeth" does NOT mean "I'm doing it right now" to a native speaker of English [ENL]. So the distinction is how we view actions and what 'tenses' we then apply.
Language isn't simply cold grammar rules. Those rules are used to give to language differing meanings, often deep nuances.
This is why language so baffles us. We know how to produce these nuances, the ones that escape ESLs, but we just don't know how to describe them.
Language really is rocket science.