From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Tenses
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:52:38 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <6hxjxaf@lynx.unm.edu>, lgorbet@carina.unm.edu (Larry P Gorbet ANTHROPOLOGY) writes:
> In article <1992Apr13.160412.1838@memstvx1.memst.edu> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>You're not talking *tense*,
>>you're talking *time*, which is not at all the same thing.  *Tense*
>>refers to the name of some specific verb form, and I know of no way
>>to limit the number of possible time-related tenses.  Time is, well,
>>time.  Because tense commonly includes both time and "Aktionsart",
>>multiple tenses for present, past, future, and timeless (forgot that
>>one, didn't you?) are certainly possible.  
> 
> Yes, tense is not just "time", but neither is it "the name of some specific
> verb form".  That characterization would relegate tense as a linguistic
> topic to odd butterfly-collecting of language particularities.  So far as
> I know, most linguists who don't just study one language and ignore all 
> others tend to use _tense_ to refer *either* to the semantic category of
> temporal deixis (i.e. time relative to the time of the speech act or to
> some other standard) *or* to the grammaticized categories which manifest 
> the semantic category (often, as noted, along with other syncretistic
> dimensions such as Aktionsart).  The problem is that not all languages
> have *morphological* categories of tense ("verb forms"), but many that
> do not (all??) have systematic ways (e.g. the English _will_ and _gonna_
> futures) of indicating that information.  If *all* you care about is
> form, then *maybe* you can restrict the category to morphological tense,
> but a lot of both synchronic and diachronic generalizations are
> unattainable if you cannot talk about the grammatical category "tense"
> as opposed to other language content concerning time (e.g. _yesterday_,
> _whenever_, _second_) in a way that includes both morphological and
> other grammaticized manifestations.

My point is simply this: that if morphology is being discussed, it is
essential to distinguish the logical category of time from its morpho-
logical representation (or lack thereof).  I think morphology is impor-
tant; if I restrict "tense" to the realm of morphology, I'm not trying
to abandon the word or make it a mere curiosity: I'm simply trying not
to confuse the reader, which is all too easy if "tense" is used for
both time and its morphological representation.  Similarly, the reason
I said "Aktionsart" above is that this is a logical category, which in
many languages receives morphological expression as "aspect".

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)

And, after the doorbell rings:

	That'll be the mailman.  (Isn't it already?  present time,
				  future tense)
	He'll give me a letter.  (future time, future tense)

And finally:

	Columbus knew the earth was/is round.  (timeless; two
						different tenses)

That's why I think it essential to distinguish time and tense.

--Leo Connolly