How would you define the future time?

Status
Not open for further replies.

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
I don't know, but I think it may help us to define future time if we know how to define past time.
 

incognittum

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Member Type
Student or Learner
PHP:
Oh, how convenient a logic here is! Your logic is, as my question was vague at the beginning, it must be still vague until now. A remarkable reasoning.
As they have been discussing my question, they still didn't even know my 'point'? I would not hint that if I were you. The joke is more on them than on me.

First, I did not mean anything offensive, you inferred the wrong meaning of what I was trying to say. My answer was neutral, I was simply replying to your statement. Anyway, this can be regarded as of no importance.
PHP:
Those readers who are before you haven't missed the point, which is about the future time, rather than the future action.


Secondly, I did say imagine the highway with cars, cars being the time, as in the concept. I did not describe it more thoroughly, to me it made sense because I understand it in my own way. Things do happen in the future, things that cannot be predicted by anyone because they have not happened, yet. Then, can future action have some relation to future time?


And, I couldn't agree more with the following;
PHP:
This extremely illogical riposte is stunning. When a student asks "How do we use Simple Present tense?", you may award to him or her the same wisdom, "You obviously have an idea of what the Simple Present tense is, and unless you ask the right question that can be answered, how can people understand what you mean. You ask in Simple Present tense, how comes you don't know the Simple Present tense?"
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
incognittum said:
Would you like to chat through an instant messanger?

Have seen the private message. If the definition is correct, it must be very short and instant. Embarrassed, I don't know how to use what-you-called instant messenger and I am an old dog that fails new trick.

--------------------
incognittum said:
Things do happen in the future,.....

I have asked for the definition of "the future", but you are always giving me, here again, things about the future. Future time and future things are different and I think that, if you pardon me, you haven't stayed on the subject steadily. As you say "Things do happen in the future", you have presupposed I know what is future. I still can't get the definition of "future time" even after you have chatted to me, in a fastest way, a thousand times of "future things".

--------------------
On the other hand, here is how we stay on our subject of time:
If you say "in two hours" is future, it is within today.
If you say "tomorrow" is future, it is within this week.
If you say "next week" is future, it is within this month.
If you say "next month" is future, it is within this year.
If you say "next year" is future, it is within this decade.
If you say "next decade" is future, it is within this century.
If you say "next century" is future, it is within this millennium.
If you say "next millennium" is future, it is within this biggest present time possible.

The contrasts above are enough for us to achieve an instant definition for "future time".

Would your next line be the definition of future time? Or another wandering future thing?

--------------------
If you scroll down this page you may see there is a past subject: "Do we have future tense?"

Here is the exact link:
https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/teaching-english/1395-do-we-have-future-tense.html

If we cannot define future time, we don't know whether we have Future Tense or not. That is to say, we jump to the conclusion that we don't have Future Tense, just because we cannot define future time. A very long premature jump.

--------------------
Down this page there is also another old subject: "Is Yesterday a past time?"

Here is the exact link:
https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/general-language-discussions/8102-yesterday-past-time.html

I am afraid the problem has not been solved yet. As there are new Yesterdays in the future, why would we call Yesterday a past time?

You work yesterday, you work today, and you work tomorrow. Will you regard the work as past? I don't think so.

Similarly, as we have Yesterday yesterday, have Yesterday today, have Yesterday tomorrow, and have Yesterday forever, why will we regard Yesterday as past?

--------------------
The conclusion deduced from above is very simple to me, we can't even define what is past, present, or future. But there must be the definitions somewhere, as far as I know. But where?

Perhaps, however, the answer has already been in "Do we have future tense?":
tdol said:
However, having been through and seen this argument time and time again, I think of it as more a question of faith\belief, rather than logic.
So, your chatting messenger should be connected to Tdol's.
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Can the instant messenger deliver the following echelons?

(1) The future time is within the present time:
"In two hours" is future time, but it is within today.
"Tomorrow" is future time, but it is within this week.
"Next month" is future time, but it is within this year.
"Next decade" is future time, but it is within this century.

(2) On the other hand, the present time can be also within the future time:
"This minute" is present time, but it is within "the coming hour".
"Today" is present time, but it is within "the coming week".
"This month" is present time, but it is within "the coming year"
"This decade" is the present time, but it is within "the coming century".

Note to point (2):
-- If today is Wednesday, "the coming week" is from this Wednesday to next Wednesday. That is to say, it connects to the present, though it refers to a future week and thus a future time. It is different from "this week", a present time, which spans from Sunday to Saturday, and Wednesday is within it.
-- Obviously, "the coming week" is also different from "next week", though both are future time.
-- The same explanation applies to "the coming minute/hour/week/year/century/etc."
-- Therefore, "this minute", a present time, is within "the coming hour", a future time.

If we combine (1) and (2) above, the conclusion can be the future time is overlapped with the present time, actually seamlessly. In other words, as can be said, future time and present time are the same. You cannot separate future time completely from the present time.

If this conclusion sounds odd to you, the story doesn't end here. Shape the reality you know to the rest of the story.
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
In our discussion, "in two hours" can be regarded as future time. If one argues it is within today, our repost will be that today is within the coming week, so today is part of a future time, which cannot nullify the futurity of "in two hours".

That is to say, whatever the time, whether it is future or present is grammatically up to our choice. Isn't "today" itself compatible with the Future Tense, as in the following example?
Ex: Today will be a rainy day.

The unavoidable question is, if the future time equals the present time, why will human beings keep the two kinds of time? The answer is, our present/future notions are on the actions, rather than on time. A present action is different from a future action. The former is a certain action, expressed in present tenses, while the latter an uncertain action, expressed in Future Tense. This is the logic of the Future Tense. After all, Future Tense does have a logic, disappointing Tdol's observation.

The criterion of the Future Tense, in view of old grammars, is whether future time or not:
1. The simple future tense is used to express an action that has still to take place. It is also used to indicate a future event that is part of a plan or arrangement
== http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/lang/Burhan/99.html

2. SIMPLE FUTURE TENSE
The future is used to express an action which will occur at a later time.
== http://www.james.rtsq.qc.ca/Virtgram/futtheor.htm

3. What are you doing tomorrow night? Next week? This weekend?
We use the future tense to answer these questions. The future tense describes actions that occur in the future.
== http://tribes.tribe.net/freeuniversity/thread/5dd135e1-c9b9-417c-af45-00fb2ef3062d

4. The FUTURE TENSE indicates that an action is in the future relative to the speaker or writer.
== http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/tenses/simple_future.htm

They don't mention the uncertain aspect of the tense, and this will lead to the doubt of its existence.

Our criterion, on the other hand, should be whether certain or uncertain. If uncertain, even a present action can be described in Future Tense:
Ex: John will be in his office now.

If the action is certain, however, even a so-called future action is described in present tenses, Simple Present or Present Progressive:
Ex: We go to Europe tomorrow/next weekend.
Ex: We are going to Europe tomorrow/next weekend.
== Just because there is Future Tense that indicates an uncertainty, here we use present tenses to throw a contrast with it, saying it is a certainty, even with a future time. Nevertheless, these examples have been mistaken as an evidence to prove there is no Future Tense, very unfortunately. Because the old erroneous criterion on Future Tense is whether future time or not, these examples exercise a denial to the existence of the Future Tense.

All modal auxiliary verbs function as the Future Tense. I would not say the proofs would be easy. But the process to the conclusion can be put into logic, as I have done it many times before.
 

incognittum

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Member Type
Student or Learner
PHP:
Have seen the private message. If the definition is correct, it must be very short and instant. Embarrassed, I don't know how to use what-you-called instant messenger and I am an old dog that fails new trick.
:) On the contrary, you "can" teach an old dog new tricks! Instead of an e-mail type slower-feedback, we could communicate much faster where both are present at each end of network through a program called an instant messanger. I would not call a post to a thread instant, regardless of how fast it takes to get to the other end, because one has to wait certain amount of time for a feed-back when the other is absent and is unable to reply.
I believe Future Tense, an action, can be within present time, it depends to what and how big a part of time you are referring to; a week or a month. You refer to "today" as being the present time and a Future Tense action can take place within that.
As to whether a future time exists within the present time, that depends on individual imagination.
PHP:
If we combine (1) and (2) above, the conclusion can be the future time is overlapped with the present time, actually seamlessly. In other words, as can be said, future time and present time are the same. You cannot separate future time completely from the present time.
Of course you cannot separate present from future time, but they are not the same. Time is a one thing, but we can put pauses between the past, present, and future time. It depends to what big of a piece of time you refer to, for example; if you refer to a minute as being the present time, anything after that will be the future time. Also, if you refer to present time as being 1,000 years, anything beyond that is future time.
Can we agree that past, present or future time can be consisted of a minute, an hour or a year? And Past Tense, Present Tense or Future Tense have their specific action that took, is taking, will or is going to take place within the time? Can this be the difference between future action and future time?
Which in turn would give you a definition of what future time is.
PHP:
That is to say, whatever the time, whether it is future or present is grammatically up to our choice. Isn't "today" itself compatible with the Future Tense, as in the following example?
Ex: Today will be a rainy day.
Today already happened, because you use the sentence while you exist within this time, that is "today", therefore it is the present time as the whole part that you're refering to. It will not rain constantly within this day, because if it did you can't write the sentence like that. If its constantly raining througout the day and you exist within it at a present time, then it can't be classified as future.
So, here we are refering to an action that is part of a different time and will happen at some point during the "day". I am talking about a 'day' and not "today". It does not have to rain constantly to be classified as a rainy day. "Today" we would refer to a specific time, a big part of time, and an action like rain could happen during the day time, anytime. Today is 24 hours and a day can be from dawn till dusk. To conclude, "will be a rainy day" is part of Future Tense, but you cannot include today as a whole to be part of future, unless you broke it to pieces and refered to hours, which would be a different time altogether. Today can't be, but a day can.
PHP:
Even a present action can be described in Future Tense:
Ex: John will be in his office now.
Maybe The Future Tense is described in present action?
If he is going to be in his office then how can he be there right this instant. Maybe the sentence is formed incorrectly, or "now" is refering to a certain amount of time as in a minute. He will be coming within this minute which would be considered as present time "now", not The Present Tense.
PHP:
If the action is certain, however, even a so-called future action is described in present tenses, Simple Present or Present Progressive:
Ex: We go to Europe tomorrow/next weekend.
Isn't the above shortened for; we are going to go to Europe tomorrow/next weekend, which would state that something will take place, a future action in a future time. The meaning changes about "we are" when you relate to future and present. When you say "we are", you are refering to present, because you exist now. When you say that "we are going to go tomorrow", and when that future time happens and becomes the present, you are going to Europe.
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
After hearing what you have said here, I am glad I don't have the chatting messenger. I find your message is pointless. What you are saying is no more than a mother is a woman. What I mean is, there is nothing inside. Seeing is believing.

For instance, you have put many words into my example expressing an uncertainty:
Ex: John will be in his office now.
incognittum said:
Maybe The Future Tense is described in present action? If he is going to be in his office then how can he be there right this instant. Maybe the sentence is formed incorrectly, or "now" is refering to a certain amount of time as in a minute. He will be coming within this minute which would be considered as present time "now", not The Present Tense.
How on earth can anyone discuss with a message with so many "Maybe"? You have done nothing but supporting my example is expressing an uncertainty.

-------------------------
I have already proven my points:
1. The future time is overlapped with the present time.
2. The criterion of using Future Tense is not because of future time, but uncertainty.

I have not found anything in your message that contradicts my points.

------------------------
My suggestion:
It was time for you to explain why Yesterday is past time.
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
You said to my example:
Ex: Today will be a rainy day.
incognittum said:
Today already happened, because you use the sentence while you exist within this time, that is "today", therefore it is the present time as the whole part that you're refering to. It will not rain constantly within this day, because if it did you can't write the sentence like that.
What you have said here is exactly what I meant. So, what is the point in describing the details of my example?
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
incognittum said:
To conclude, "will be a rainy day" is part of Future Tense...
Wrong conclusion. A tense is a form that happens only to the verb, here "will be", not "will be a rainy day".

Please be informed that "will be a rainy day" is part of the sentence.
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
incognittum said:
Also, if you refer to present time as being 1,000 years, anything beyond that is future time.
Are you telling me, you don't agree to my conclusion that the present is overlapped with the future?
 
Last edited:

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
incognittum said:
Also, if you refer to present time as being 1,000 years, anything beyond that is future time.
Those who embrace such supposition as yours can never explain why Yesterday is past time, because they don't know how one is aware of time. They think one has no present time in oneself, so one would "refer to present time as" out there.

Actually, no one will refer to present time as being a time out there, like 1,000 years.
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
incognittum said:
I believe Future Tense, an action, can be within present time, it depends to what and how big a part of time you are referring to; a week or a month.
The more I read, the more I am sure you don't know what is tense. The word "Tense" comes from Latin 'tempus', meaning time. So, Future Tense is not "an action". You believe wrong.
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
You said to my example:
Ex: Today will be a rainy day.
incognittum said:
So, here we are refering to an action that is part of a different time and will happen at some point during the "day". I am talking about a 'day' and not "today". It does not have to rain constantly to be classified as a rainy day. "Today" we would refer to a specific time, a big part of time, and an action like rain could happen during the day time, anytime. Today is 24 hours and a day can be from dawn till dusk.
Do you really believe this yourself? "Today" is not the 'day'?

If I say "John is a strange guy", would you say in a similar way that there is John and there is a guy that is strange?
 
Last edited:

muaz

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Do you mean about future tense?
Because my teacher says that we can use present tense for future too.
for instance: " I am going to fly tomorrow."
It is in present tense but about future.:-?
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Muaz,
muaz said:
Because my teacher says that we can use present tense for future too.
for instance: " I am going to fly tomorrow."
It is in present tense but about future.

My suggestion is, here is forum for linguists and not for students. But if you think you can read linguistic dull discussions, then please read all the pages here. I am sorry if I cannot give an instant, full answer to you.
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
incognittum said:
Also, if you refer to present time as being 1,000 years, anything beyond that is future time.

Maybe you wanted to say, "If there is a present time, any time beyond that is future time". But you didn't catch the meaning of "overlap". After your saying, I may also add a present time AFTER your future time:
Ex: "If there is a present time, any time beyond that is future time, and any time beyond that future time is present time".
For example, if "this week" is present time, "next week" is then future time. However, after "next week", there is "this year". This is what I mean the present time is overlapped with the future time. In other words, the two kinds of time are confused.

I didn't say there is no present time, and there is. I didn't say there is no future time, and there is. But the two kinds of time are overlapped, so cannot be a criterion to judge the Future Tense. Future Tense is then judged by uncertainty, rather than by future time.
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
muaz said:
Because my teacher says that we can use present tense for future too.
for instance: " I am going to fly tomorrow."
It is in present tense but about future.

I have said something like the following, and I think it is the main point relating to your question.

Old criterion for Future Tense is future time, and it is a wrong criterion. This old erroneous criterion will lead to the doubt of existence of Future Tense. Nowadays, some people even say there is no Future Tense.

Claiming there is the Future Tense, I therefore suggest the criterion for Future Tense should be whether certain or uncertain. If uncertain, even a present action can be described in Future Tense:
Ex: John will be in his office now.

If the action is certain, however, even a so-called future action is described in present tenses, Simple Present or Present Progressive:
Ex: We go to Europe tomorrow/next weekend.
Ex: We are going to Europe tomorrow/next weekend.
== Just because there is Future Tense "will go" that indicates an uncertainty, here we deliberately use present tenses to throw a contrast with Future Tense. Present tenses here say these actions are a certainty, even with future time expression.
Nevertheless, unfortunately, these examples have been mistaken by people as an evidence to prove against Future Tense, and they concluded there is no Future Tense.
Because their old erroneous criterion on Future Tense is future time, these examples having violated their criterion are taken as a denial to the existence of the Future Tense.

But you should read more, if you tolerate linguistic discussion. Future Tense is very complicated and here is only a small part of its use. Believe it or not, I am here proving there is Future Tense. You may give your opinions here.
 

incognittum

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Member Type
Student or Learner
PHP:
How on earth can anyone discuss with a message with so many "Maybe"? You have done nothing but supporting my example is expressing an uncertainty.

I did not disagree, just simply tried to express myself in own words to see if it fits. And with "maybe" I left the statement open to other possibilities, so that anyone can draw whatever conclusions they want.


PHP:
Those who embrace such supposition as yours can never explain why Yesterday is past time, because they don't know how one is aware of time. They think one has no present time in oneself, so one would "refer to present time as" out there.

It depends on the individual how he sees the present time. If I refer to these 1,000 years as the time I was waiting for I could say it is the present time. Time can be anything; a minute, an hour or a day. It is up to me to decide how big of a piece of time I am refering to. And, right you are, that no one would refer to 1,000 years as present, because we don't live that long, but I could say that a week is present because I was waiting for this particular week to happen.
We do not have present time in self, because we exist within it.

PHP:
I believe Future Tense, an action, can be within present time, it depends to what and how big a part of time you are referring to; a week or a month.
PHP:
The more I read, the more I am sure you don't know what is tense. The word "Tense" comes from Latin 'tempus', meaning time. So, Future Tense is not "an action". You believe wrong.

...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...
I said Future Tense action, not being one.

PHP:
Do you really believe this yourself? "Today" is not the 'day'? 
If I say "John is a strange guy", would you say in a similar way that there is John and there is a guy that is strange?

I think I tried to explain that "today" and 'day' refer to different times not that they are different. Anyway, before I must have understood what I ment, but I can't make sense of this anymore. :lol:


PHP:
Are you telling me, you don't agree to my conclusion that the present is overlapped with the future?
If future time can exist within present, as in; in two hours it will be future time and that happens within the day that someone would clasify as present then that would overlap if it can be put that way.

I tend to rush myself all the time without thoroughly thinking things over, something like; million thoughts a minute, and of course it leads to confusion. And, Mr. Shun, relax and enjoy the summer!:up:
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Incognittum,

You had written this:
incognittum said:
Also, if you refer to present time as being 1,000 years, anything beyond that is future time.
Now you added:
incognittum said:
It depends on the individual how he sees the present time. If I refer to these 1,000 years as the time I was waiting for I could say it is the present time. Time can be anything; a minute, an hour or a day. It is up to me to decide how big of a piece of time I am refering to.

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?

I hope you can see what follows. This IF doesn't happen.

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.

And your choice is?

-------------------------------
incognittum said:
...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...
What a mess about the basic terms we have here.

In "We are discussing English tense", this is how we call them:
1. the sentence is "We are discussing English tense".
2. the so-called action is the idea we have got from the sentence, whether a state or an activity.
3. the verb is "discuss".
4. the tense is the form of the verb, now "are discussing", which tells the time of the action.
5. time is past, present, and future; and no more.

Therefore, verb is NOT that indicates the time; tense is.
Time is NOT "as well as whether the action or state is....."

I know there have been many books called exactly "The English Verb", written by different authors at different times, and they talked about tense. But really "verb" is not tense that indicates the time. If you really look for verb, look up a dictionary, rather than a grammar book.

------------------
As for the example "Today will be a rainy day", you wrote:
incognittum said:
I think I tried to explain that "today" and 'day' refer to different times not that they are different.
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.

--------------------
I asked: Are you telling me, you don't agree to my conclusion that the present is overlapped with the future?
incognittum said:
If future time can exist within present, as in; in two hours it will be future time and that happens within the day that someone would clasify as present then that would overlap if it can be put that way.
So, you don't disagree.

You too have a good summer holiday!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top