[rewboss]

Originally Posted by riverkid

I have been arguing from the get go using the commonly accepted definition of tense.

Well, sort of, which is why we're having a problem here. This actually started because you complained about a particular grammarian saying that "might" is the past tense of "may" and simply stated that he was wrong, and I called you out on that. He was, however, 100% correct. What is true is that the past tense does not always indicate a past time.

What do you say of the direct quote? And of the direct quote wherein the speaker keeps the reporting verb in the present tense form? Do these also indicate that "it ... is that the state described as "is going to Tokyo" is now in the past".

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. At the point in time when the direct quote was originally made, the plan was still current. The point of a direct quote is that the exact words uttered by the speaker are reproduced. The speaker says the exact words "I am going to Tokyo" to indicate that, in that particular moment, that's what the plan was. If, however, the plan had since been cancelled, the speaker would have said, "I was going to Tokyo, but..."

I don't understand what's so complicated about, "I may go to Tokyo".

My point about it being more complicated is because where modal verbs are concerned, tense is less likely to express time and more likely to express something else; and also because a simple change of tense can result in a significant change of meaning (consider "should", sometimes a simple past tense form of "shall", but often conveying a sense not hinted at by anything "shall" has to offer, as in "You should tell him."

we have taken a present tense and made it a past tense FORM. And why have you done this? One reason and one reason only; the FORM alerts the listener that it is reported speech. It doesn't suggest to the listener that the cake has been made, does it, RB?

No; the form alerts the listener to the fact that the speaker is distancing himself from the original statement. That is one of the functions of the past tense [form].

I'm sorry but you've lost me, RB. It is not equally possible to materially change the meaning of what someone says and expect it to be equal in meaning.
He said he might make a cake. = "He said he may make a cake,"
but neither of them are equal to,
"He said he has made a cake."

I am merely pointing out the similarity in the constructions, and how the transformation works. I am well aware that the meaning is very different, but the transformation is remarkably similar.

However, I don't think "He said he might make a cake" is quite equal in meaning to "...he may...". Very similar indeed in most cases, but the present tense form can indicate permission ("...he is allowed to...") or, in the case of possibility, is more likely in the absence of further clues to indicate that the cake may be made at some time in the future, a sense which "might" is less likely to convey.

Calling modals tenseless accurately describes how they operate in modern English.

I'm suggesting that calling modals "tenseless" is meaningless. Modals can and sometimes do at least offer clues as to when an action takes place (which covers the meaning you attach to "tense") -- e.g. "I can do this now, but I couldn't back then" -- and most do come in pairs of present/past forms (which covers the narrower meaning I am using in this post). It is true that they are less likely to convey a sense of time, but they are not completely tenseless by any definition of the word "tense".

Note that the whole way through you've described these as {___} verb FORMS. I have no problem with that. For the modals, it's completely accurate to describes them as "Historical past tenses".

[...]

Admittedly, there has been some impreciseness when using terminlogy and I suspect I haven't been as careful as I should be but, RB, here now you say; ""Past tense" does not describe when an action takes place", when clearly it does.
"Past tense FORM" does not describe when an action takes place".

I used the word "form" simply to underline the point. But much of my previous post was about the importance of agreeing on the terminology, and I then made it clear that I was using the true, linguistic meaning of "tense". That's the meaning I use here -- having established that fact.

All this is well and good but it still doesn't mean that this special set of verbs, the modals, has tense. For years, decades, probably centuries, reported speech has been erroneously described as using past tense with the commonly accepted idea of past action.
That has been the sole proof that modals have tense. Now look to the other side, actual usage. Modals operate in all tense/time situations. Save for a few situations that remain from earlier periods of the language, modals carry emotive meaning into sentences but other structures are responsible for carrying tense/time.

It may be that you have misunderstood grammar books when they talk about tense, because I for one have never seen a grammar book (and believe me, I have seen a few) that stated that "would" always indicates "will" when it's in the past. Quite the reverse, actually; particularly the older grammar books have talked about using "will" and "shall" together to form something called the "future determinate", and "would" to form the conditional. Certainly I have yet to see a grammar book that claims that "might" means "may in the past".

I think it's possible that you have attached to the word "tense" a meaning that you think it should have, and worked backwards from that. True, nearly all grammar books label as tenses what are actually aspects, modes and moods, but as a rule grammar books do not say that "tense" is the same thing as "time when an action takes place", which is what you seem to insist on. That approach would be ridiculous; after all, we often use the present continuous "tense" to describe future events, and grammar books are always very careful to observe the distinction.

It seems that when you see a statement like, "Might is the past tense of may", your first thought is: "Oh heavens, he's saying that might means may when it's in past time" -- and that is almost certainly not what the other person means.