How would you define the future time?

[incognittum]

PHP Code:

If, and I stress again on IF, one refers to present time as being 1,000 years, I agree with you beyond that is future time. But in this case, there is no future time between 1 and 999 years. There will be no future time in next hour, nor next week, nor next month, nor next year, nor next decade, nor next ten decades.... Does this make sense? 


How would you classify an event that unexpectedly was to happen in a week or so within those 1,000 years that is the present time? That other event has to be classified as something and I don't think it would be right to say that the upcoming event was anything but the future time, which makes it seem like the future time exists within the present.

PHP Code:

Of course, there is another IF, which is mine. The present time is overlapped with the future time. Therefore, there is future time both before and after 1,000 years. 


If you say it like that, wouldn't it be more rational to say that those 1,000 years are also the future, unless they come to be, which would make the even that occured before them a past time?
How can there be future time before and after present time?

PHP Code:

...verb that indicates the time, such as past, present, or future, as well as whether the action or state is continued or completed.
Tense specifies whether the verb refers to action in the past, present, or future... 


Let me correct myself here, I just gave the definition of the tense, which was not a statement. Furthermore, it was not completed, because I did not feel it was necessary, which would explain "...", I was previously refering to my post which should have read "an action within future time", it was a wrong sentence structure.

PHP Code:

Then I think your explanation allows that, in "John is a strange guy", John and 'guy' refer to different persons not that they are different. 


No comment here, since I have lost track of whatever I was trying to explain.


Tomorrow, I am off on my vacation for three weeks, so no access to the net, - HOW WONDERFUL!

All the best!

[shun]

Originally Posted by incognittum

How would you classify an event that unexpectedly was to happen in a week or so within those 1,000 years that is the present time?

It sounds like an uncertainty. And I would say it is a future action.

--------------------

Originally Posted by incognittum

That other event has to be classified as something and I don't think it would be right to say that the upcoming event was anything but the future time, which makes it seem like the future time exists within the present.

It sounds like an uncertainty too.

-------------------

Originally Posted by incognittum

If you say it like that, wouldn't it be more rational to say that those 1,000 years are also the future, unless they come to be, which would make the even that occured before them a past time?

But how would you define "past time"? You can't define past time.

-----------------

Originally Posted by incognittum

How can there be future time before and after present time?

How would you define "present time"? You can't define present time.

-------------------

Originally Posted by incognittum

Let me correct myself here, I just gave the definition of the tense, which was not a statement. Furthermore, it was not completed, because I did not feel it was necessary, which would explain "...", I was previously refering to my post which should have read "an action within future time", it was a wrong sentence structure.

I could fine no problem here.

---------------------

Originally Posted by incognittum

No comment here, since I have lost track of whatever I was trying to explain.

It started with a confusion in which you bring out 'day' from "today" in the following structure:
Ex: Today will be a rainy day.

[incognittum]

PHP Code:

But how would you define "past time"? You can't define past time. 


PHP Code:

How would you define "present time"? You can't define present time. 


"Time is a concept of man"
If so, then it is up to an individual to define time, whether past, present or future for themselves. Also, it would be up to each of us to have a definition, that would make sense to that individual, of what present, past or future time is. Unless that someone chooses an option that one cannot define past, present or future time, and so we ponder indubitably.

[shun]

Originally Posted by incognittum

"Time is a concept of man"

Originally Posted by incognittum

If so, then it is up to an individual to define time, whether past, present or future for themselves.

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.

[shun]

Originally Posted by incognittum

"Time is a concept of man". If so, then it is up to an individual to define time, whether past, present or future for themselves.

At least, I predict you can't even have your own definitions.

[riverkid]

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.

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by riverkid

"I brush my teeth" does NOT mean "I'm doing it right now" to a native speaker of English [ENL].

I wouldn't entirely agree with this statement. There are contexts in which "I brush my teeth" might refer to a repeated action, e.g.

1. "What's the first thing you do when you get up in the morning?" "I brush my teeth."

There are also contexts in which it might refer to a particular action, for instance when recounting an anecdote:

2. I get up. I brush my teeth. I have my breakfast. Then the phone rings. It's my stalker, calling from the phone box outside...

But the simple present might also occur in a commentary on a current action:

3. She brushes her teeth...She goes to the kitchen...she boils the kettle...

(Cf. sports commentaries.)

In this usage, a commentary on one's own actions would be equally possible.

MrP

[riverkid]

Riverkid wrote:
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.

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

I wouldn't entirely agree with this statement. There are contexts in which "I brush my teeth" might refer to a repeated action, e.g.
Actually, I'd say that's the norm for the present simple; it describes repeated actions that are habits and routines. Would you not agree, Mr P?
1. "What's the first thing you do when you get up in the morning?" "I brush my teeth."
Correct, this does not mean, "I'm doing it right now".
There are also contexts in which it might refer to a particular action, for instance when recounting an anecdote:
2. I get up. I brush my teeth. I have my breakfast. Then the phone rings. It's my stalker, calling from the phone box outside...
Absolutely, one of the jobs of the present simple, relating a past story to make it seems more alive, but this still doesn't mean, "I'm doing it right now".
But the simple present might also occur in a commentary on a current action:
3. She brushes her teeth...She goes to the kitchen...she boils the kettle...
(Cf. sports commentaries, plays.)
In this usage, a commentary on one's own actions would be equally possible.
Again, I fully agree with you, Mr P. But it still doesn't mean, "I'm doing it right now" in the sense that the normal present continuous does.
When someone asks, "What are you doing?", to inquire about my bouncing a ball,
can I say, "I bounce the ball"; would any ENL reply, "I bounce the ball."

Or do ENLs upon seeing one brush one's teeth, ask,
What do you do?

[MrPedantic]

But it still doesn't mean, "I'm doing it right now" in the sense that the normal present continuous does.

Fair enough.

MrP

[riverkid]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

Fair enough.
MrP

It's always nice to hear from you and to discuss language issues with you, Mr P.

Take care.

Cheers,

RK