From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Tenses
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:12:43 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Apr15.181623.26546@news.Hawaii.Edu>, mathias@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Gerald B. Mathias) writes:
> In article <1992Apr14.085238.1845@memstvx1.memst.edu> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>
>>A further complication is that time and tense need not agree.
>>Consider:
>>
>>	He's going home now.  (present time, present tense)
>>	He's going home tomorrow.  (future time, present tense)
> 
> Maybe that complication could partly be avoided by renaming tenses so that
> they don't sound like they refer to times.  What's the rationale for
> referring to the above as "_present_ tense" if it's not a matter of time?

Partly tradition, partly the fact that this is the proper form for
actions or states with present time reference.

> But certainly distinguishing semantic time from morphological tense is an
> important step.

I don't claim any originality on this; I think it's a step taken long ago.

> A further complication is that time isn't all that easy to pin down.  Why
> would "He's going home now" predicate present time?  It's most likely to
> be said about somebody getting ready to leave.  But he won't have _done_
> it--he won't have "gone home"--until he gets home, obviously future time.
> So it looks like future time to me, but I suspect almost everyone would
> call it present.

It's ambiguous: it could refer to someone about to leave ("immediate
future", as some call it) or to someone already on his way (which is how
I meant it).

> (A further complication is that there _is_ no present,
> unless time comes in quanta.)

Depends on the predicate.  Many verbs have momentary Aktionsart, and
such verbs cannot have a true present time, as you rightly said.  But
other predicates (verbs, adjectives) with "durative" Aktionsart can and
do have true present time (which is, of course, also at least immediate past
and/or immediate future time).  I'm not a Slavicist, but I believe the
verb systems of Russian and other Slavic languages make these distinctions
overt because of their morphological aspect: the (formal) present of a
momentary ("perfective") verb has future meaning.

>>And, after the doorbell rings:
>>
>>	That'll be the mailman.  (Isn't it already?  present time,
>>				  future tense)
> 
> It still will be the mailman (if it really is "now") when we get to the
> door.  (future time, `will' tense)

I stick with my original interpretation.  By the way, in German, future
tenses with modal present meaning are extremely common, and the future
perfect with modal past meaning also occurs.

	Das wirst du schon wissen.  'You must already know that.'
	(literally: 'You will know that already.')

	Das wird er schon gemacht haben.  'He must have done that.'
	(literally: 'He will have done that already.')

>>And finally:
>>
>>	Columbus knew the earth was/is round.  (timeless; two
>>						different tenses)
> 
> Why "timeless"?  It seems clearly to predicate the past, with either tense,
> and to predict the future.  Wouldn't some English equivalent of omnitemporal
> be more appropriate?

"Timeless" because no time is specified or specifiable.  "Omnitemporal" is
overkill: many such unspecified time situations are definitely limited in
time.  The following is limited to the lifetime of the subject.

	Mary knew even then that she wanted / wants children.

--Leo Connolly