Talk:Future tense

message: I think it's pretty obvious the future tense section from future needs merging into here. Comments? Objections? Grandmasterka 02:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Merge supported.--Boson 18:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I, too, agree. It talks about grammar and not future as a concept in itself, therefore I support it. 2.7182V 04:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Object: The two are different tenses. Merging for merge's sake is stupid. Since both are different grammatical tenses, it makes sense to have two seperate articles. Why, for instance, merge pluperfect and perfect tenses? Which are, after all, as similar as the future is to the future perfect. Lofty 11:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger from [[future]] 

message: IMO it's incorrect to list should as one of the auxiliary verbs used to form the future tense in English. Should is just a past of shall, though in the modern language it's not usually perceived as such, but rather as an auxiliary verb on its own. --195.1.232.18 00:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, that was actually me, forgot to log in. --X-Man 00:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shall and should 

message: Some missing future tense in English:
Be going to (or be gonna, used in almost every English dialect) for near future - This is borrowed from French, where it is recognized as a tense
:I agree gonna should be added, although I'm fairly sure it wasn't borrowed from French. -- Anaphor 02:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some missing futures 

message: After looking at the current state of the article, and comparing it to the one before the rewrite, I have reverted it back to before the rewrite.  The new version was entirely unreadable.  The old version, with its alleged inaccuracy at least was readable and structured well. Gigs (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undid rewrite 

message: The box above the English language section is full of inaccuracies.  The shall/will distinction is completely obsolete, this is true.  But that the phrasal 'to be going to...' serves as a future tense is false.  Whoever is responsible for that box has confused grammatical/syntactic tense with physical/real-world time.  There are many languages that can use verbs in various tenses to express things of various and different 'temporallity'.  The train leaves at 12:00 is an example of this.  While the event spoken of is temporally futuristic, the tense used is not future.  The tense used is simple present.  While I believe a discussion on the usage of verb tenses for differing temporal tenses would be relevant, it is by no means a property of only English and would be better set in to a section of its own within the article.  Remember, the article is about verb tense, not about time.  The article as proposed, and even parts of it as written, confuses these distinctions and fails to explain how they interact, instead assuming that any and all clauses that discuss actions yet to happen are somehow in the future tense—they're not.  Tense is a property of verb morphology.  Time is a property of the physical world.  Which one is this article about?  Fixing is needed, but not in the ways proposed.Bearnfæder (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed that box.  Could you suggest what remains that needs fixing? Gigs (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Language Problems 

message: No single word about future tense in Slavic languages.--94.189.134.120 (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavic languages 

message: The section about Hebrew future tense is completely incorrect. Biblical Hebrew has two forms of expressing future. Mishnaic Hebrew (not mentioned at all) kept one of them. Modern Hebrew followed Mishnaic Hebrew in future tense usage.
The opinion that modern Hebrew is not a Semitic language is esoteric, and it completely irrelevant in this context, as modern Hebrew tenses are identical to the Mishnaic Hebrew tenses.
This section needs more sources (which I cannot provide) and examples in Hebrew (which I will try to provide).
Laugh Tough (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew 

message: O.k., so there are some grammarians who have invented an "indicative uncertain future" and an "indicative certain future" for the German language. If that is so, why...
*... aren't there any sources cited?
*... don't the Germans know about it?
There is no mention of "ungewiss zukünftige Zeit" or "gewiss künftige Zeit" on the German Wikipedia, and I doubt that any modern-day German has ever heard about it.
There is a total of EIGHT Google results for "ungewiss zukünftige Zeit" (a book from 1767 and several Wikipedia mirrors), and FIVE Google results for "gewiss künftige Zeit" (books from 1752, 1759, 1791, 1796).
What German are you talking about in this article, 18th century German? --91.34.40.67 (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special German future