Future tense in English Language

His point is that English has no verb conjugation for the simple future tense. We have one for the simple present (i.e., I eat...), simple past, (i.e., I ate), but nothing for the future tense. Instead, we express the future tense a variety of ways:

1. simple present: I work tomorrow.
2. present progressive: I am working tomorrow.
3. Modals "will" and "going to": I will work tomorrow. I am going to work tomorrow.

But to answer his question, yes, it's appropriate to talk of the future tense...how else would be do it (smile)?

His point is that English has no verb conjugation for the simple future tense. We have one for the simple present (i.e., I eat...), simple past, (i.e., I ate), but nothing for the future tense. Instead, we express the future tense a variety of ways: 1. simple present: I work tomorrow. 2. present progressive: I am working tomorrow. 3. Modals "will" and "going to": I will work tomorrow. I am going to work tomorrow. But to answer his question, yes, it's appropriate to talk of the future tense...how else would be do it (smile)?

Save Cancel

My mistake for assuming what you meant :)

You are absolutely right, there is a clear different between time, tense, and aspect.

Thanks for the explanation.

My mistake for assuming what you meant :) You are absolutely right, there is a clear different between time, tense, and aspect. Thanks for the explanation.

Save Cancel

Sir Rafi,
I am really happy to read your explanation. I often refer to the difference between "Tense" and "Time" in my classes. I ask the students to simply assess the situation and identify the time :Present, Past or Future. The Tense varies as per the rules, signifying the variation you are talking in your post.
Thanks for bringing up the point in this discussion...

Sir Rafi, I am really happy to read your explanation. I often refer to the difference between "Tense" and "Time" in my classes. I ask the students to simply assess the situation and identify the <b>time</b> :Present, Past or Future. The Tense varies as per the rules, signifying the variation you are talking in your post. Thanks for bringing up the point in this discussion...

Save Cancel

Yep, I thought so. You are talking so far over my head that I can't see you anymore. I hardly believe that you teach and deal with this at the High School level. It must be that non English natives really are a lot smarter than native speakers.

Yep, I thought so. You are talking so far over my head that I can't see you anymore. I hardly believe that you teach and deal with this at the High School level. It must be that non English natives really are a lot smarter than native speakers.

Save Cancel

Dear sir,
Either I completely misunderstand your question or you are speaking so far over my head that I shouldn't even offer an opinion.

I talk about the future all the time as a native speaker. We use to call the tenses future simple and future "perfect" but now they call it something else (continuous?)

If I return to this forum tomorrow, will it be by chance or because I knew what was coming? I will come again tomorrow. I will be expecting a reply. But, did I just ask you in a futre tense or not? 'Tis for you to decide ;-)

George

PS I tend to be playful with my postings. Please don't take offense. I would like to hear your posit in a way I can understand.

Dear sir, Either I completely misunderstand your question or you are speaking so far over my head that I shouldn't even offer an opinion. I talk about the future all the time as a native speaker. We use to call the tenses future simple and future "perfect" but now they call it something else (continuous?) If I return to this forum tomorrow, will it be by chance or because I knew what was coming? I will come again tomorrow. I will be expecting a reply. But, did I just ask you in a futre tense or not? 'Tis for you to decide ;-) George PS I tend to be playful with my postings. Please don't take offense. I would like to hear your posit in a way I can understand.

Save Cancel

Sir Rafi,

Thanks a lot for your observations and opinions; I understand that Kashmiri belongs as well to the Indoeuropean supra family of languages, so finding one of its characteristics such as the one you mention maybe only reaffirms the fact that languages drop any unnecessary tool when not needed.

Something I don't like particularly, but that has been present in Spanish in the last, say, 20-25 years, is to use the English present continuous for future actions translated directly into Spanish phrases, "we are going to the UK next week", "nos estamos yendo al Reino Unido la semana que viene", something absolutely incorrect in Spanish, as we do have a future inflection form, "nos iremos" "we will go", or an alternative "nos vamos a ir" "we are going to go". Present continuous in Spanish is just that, a Present form. But simplification starts this way, I guess...:)

A Hebrew and other Semitic languages teacher told me once that in Hebrew and Aramaic you don't have a present simple form, you must only use the object and the subject, i.e. "I restaurant" to convey that you are there at the moment. I'm not sure about this but maybe you can guide.

I'd like to quote a reflection from Jorge Luis Borges, maybe the most important writer and scholar the Argentine ever had:

"Las lenguas son, en último término, simplificaciones de una realidad que siempre las rebasa, y sólo pueden justificarse con un fin práctico".
(Inquisiciones. p. 65-66)

"Languages are, eventually, simplifications of a reality that always overlaps them, and that can only be justified by having a practical meaning" (Inquisitions, pages 65-66).

Best wishes,

Pablo

Sir Rafi, Thanks a lot for your observations and opinions; I understand that Kashmiri belongs as well to the Indoeuropean supra family of languages, so finding one of its characteristics such as the one you mention maybe only reaffirms the fact that languages drop any unnecessary tool when not needed. Something I don't like particularly, but that has been present in Spanish in the last, say, 20-25 years, is to use the English present continuous for future actions translated directly into Spanish phrases, "we are going to the UK next week", "nos estamos yendo al Reino Unido la semana que viene", something absolutely incorrect in Spanish, as we do have a future inflection form, "nos iremos" "we will go", or an alternative "nos vamos a ir" "we are going to go". Present continuous in Spanish is just that, a Present form. But simplification starts this way, I guess...:) A Hebrew and other Semitic languages teacher told me once that in Hebrew and Aramaic you don't have a present simple form, you must only use the object and the subject, i.e. "I restaurant" to convey that you are there at the moment. I'm not sure about this but maybe you can guide. I'd like to quote a reflection from Jorge Luis Borges, maybe the most important writer and scholar the Argentine ever had: "Las lenguas son, en último término, simplificaciones de una realidad que siempre las rebasa, y sólo pueden justificarse con un fin práctico". (Inquisiciones. p. 65-66) "Languages are, eventually, simplifications of a reality that always overlaps them, and that can only be justified by having a practical meaning" (Inquisitions, pages 65-66). Best wishes, Pablo

Save Cancel

Dear all,

Impressed by the clarity and conciseness of Sir Rafi's recounting. In fact, I had intended to post something similar, but he did far more better.

Indoeuropean languages are diverse, many and enormously rich. English, Spanish and Hindi, to name three, belong to different sub-branches of the supra-family, and they are connected somehow, through roots or concepts; e.g., sky, skin, cutis and scutum (Latin for skin & shield respectively) come from the IE root *SKH, "to cover". Hindi "haan" and "nahiin" still retain a strong resemblance to Standard German "ja" and "nein", yes & no.

But there are issues.

Most Northern Germanic IE languages have lost inflexion through the centuries; I know only about English, to a lesser extent Afrikaans and much more less Swedish. But I've seen that they all usually share such feature, that is, lacking of tenses in verbs or grouping many different meanings in one or two, something that Spanish speakers (a language that can inflect up to 50 forms from a verb, depending on the dialect) find strange and, no offence please, sometimes too good to be true. Therefore, they commit mistakes trying to find "that" conjugation which, simply, doesn't exist anymore in English (it did in Anglo Saxon, but that happened long ago). Has anybody tried to read "Beowulf" without a dictionary? :)

I agree with Sir Rafi; there is no future tense in English. At least, not in the southern & eastern Indoeuropean way (Slavic, Romance, Indo-Aryan). In fact, only three possible conjugations exist in English, PS "go", PaS "went" PPart "gone". Apart from the 3rd person singular in PS "goes", no other inflection is necessary, regardless the person. To express negatives, you simply conjugate "do", using its only simple past "did", and leave the infinitive there. "Did you go?". In Spanish that would be "¿fuiste?", just as if we were interrogating using a kind of "you went?". In the conjugation the person is implied, so no need of saying "tú/vos" (you).

Spanish equivalent of "go", "ir", would be: PS voy, vas, va, vamos, váis, van. PaS fui, fuiste, fue, fuimos, fuisteis, fueron. PP ido, ida, idos, idas (old AngloSaxon cognate EODE, was replaced by WENT from a verb WENDEN about 1200 AD).

But there is more: potentials can, could, should, will, shall, would, must, ought to, only express a different time of the present tense, as we add the mere infinitive, "go", to any of them to express likeliness. In Spanish, there are future conjugations of the verb that do not use any auxiliary or potential at all, as they don't need any. Will becomes 'certainty' in English; the different Spanish conjugations for that are: iré, irás, irá, iremos, iráis, irán. Future tense conjugations of the verb "ir".

No language is, by any means, better than any other, as they express realities and perceptions of life of a certain social group at a certain time & place; maybe the expanding, relatively easy in inflection 10th and 11th century English didn't need any complexity in conjugation, due to the enormously poetic and rich AngloSaxon and Old Norse heritage. Something I love, indeed. But when it comes to tenses, is far behind most of its cousins from the continental parts of Europe and Asia. Something that Anglosphere's language learners must be aware of.

Best wishes to all and thanks for letting me participate,

Pablo

Dear all, Impressed by the clarity and conciseness of Sir Rafi's recounting. In fact, I had intended to post something similar, but he did far more better. Indoeuropean languages are diverse, many and enormously rich. English, Spanish and Hindi, to name three, belong to different sub-branches of the supra-family, and they are connected somehow, through roots or concepts; e.g., sky, skin, cutis and scutum (Latin for skin & shield respectively) come from the IE root *SKH, "to cover". Hindi "haan" and "nahiin" still retain a strong resemblance to Standard German "ja" and "nein", yes & no. But there are issues. Most Northern Germanic IE languages have lost inflexion through the centuries; I know only about English, to a lesser extent Afrikaans and much more less Swedish. But I've seen that they all usually share such feature, that is, lacking of tenses in verbs or grouping many different meanings in one or two, something that Spanish speakers (a language that can inflect up to 50 forms from a verb, depending on the dialect) find strange and, no offence please, sometimes too good to be true. Therefore, they commit mistakes trying to find "that" conjugation which, simply, doesn't exist anymore in English (it did in Anglo Saxon, but that happened long ago). Has anybody tried to read "Beowulf" without a dictionary? :) I agree with Sir Rafi; there is no future tense in English. At least, not in the southern & eastern Indoeuropean way (Slavic, Romance, Indo-Aryan). In fact, only three possible conjugations exist in English, PS "go", PaS "went" PPart "gone". Apart from the 3rd person singular in PS "goes", no other inflection is necessary, regardless the person. To express negatives, you simply conjugate "do", using its only simple past "did", and leave the infinitive there. "Did you go?". In Spanish that would be "¿fuiste?", just as if we were interrogating using a kind of "you went?". In the conjugation the person is implied, so no need of saying "tú/vos" (you). Spanish equivalent of "go", "ir", would be: PS voy, vas, va, vamos, váis, van. PaS fui, fuiste, fue, fuimos, fuisteis, fueron. PP ido, ida, idos, idas (old AngloSaxon cognate EODE, was replaced by WENT from a verb WENDEN about 1200 AD). But there is more: potentials can, could, should, will, shall, would, must, ought to, only express a different time of the present tense, as we add the mere infinitive, "go", to any of them to express likeliness. In Spanish, there are future conjugations of the verb that do not use any auxiliary or potential at all, as they don't need any. Will becomes 'certainty' in English; the different Spanish conjugations for that are: iré, irás, irá, iremos, iráis, irán. Future tense conjugations of the verb "ir". No language is, by any means, better than any other, as they express realities and perceptions of life of a certain social group at a certain time & place; maybe the expanding, relatively easy in inflection 10th and 11th century English didn't need any complexity in conjugation, due to the enormously poetic and rich AngloSaxon and Old Norse heritage. Something I love, indeed. But when it comes to tenses, is far behind most of its cousins from the continental parts of Europe and Asia. Something that Anglosphere's language learners must be aware of. Best wishes to all and thanks for letting me participate, Pablo

Save Cancel

@ Pablo

You really sound so realistic and fair in your opinion.Should I tell you that my 'Mother tongue" Kashmiri has no provision for the most important Present Continuous Tense,and that does not make it a less important language.The only difference it makes is that it has a different mechanism for conveying meanings.
English does not have any provision for Future Tense (it has one for talking about future time) ; that does not make it a less important language.
A language belongs to one who has the capability to 'handle' it.English as much my language as Arabic ,Urdu and Kashmiri.
Thanks for encouragement.I would like to quote an urdu verse:

Mein kisi shaks say bayzar nahein housakta,
Koii zaraa bhi tou baykaar nahein housakta.
Pyaar itnaa hai insaan ki hkatayoon say mujhaay
Ki firishta mera myyaar nahein housakta.
Translation:
(I can't afford to have any grudges against anyone,
Because even a speck cannot be without a use.
I am in love with human frailties
Because I can't judge men in comparison to Angels.)

@ George

It is one more incident of the failure of communication. I have always been averse to the practice of teaching things “about language" to students other than to Pupil Teachers (trainee teachers).We don't teach such matter ,at least at secondary level. It is language (English) that we introduce there (in the classroom) and not matter about language (Grammar).I am on the forum (english.wiziq.com),the most appropriate forum for such stuff, meant for Teachers of English (fortunately, including English Teachers) and, feel that no teacher can afford to be ignorant of such matters. We as teachers are supposed to know ,not only the target language but also almost all about the language.
I would love to tell you,on sidelines ,that the first Urdu Grammar was made by a non-native speaker of Urdu. Jesperson,too, was not a native speaker of English.
I have found something interesting about the mechanism of English tense system, something overlooked so far.I t would be really fun to share it with you. Though, I shall have to time it properly.Jane Austin's "Kitty" would get reprimanded for untimely coughs.
I enjoy to be playful.
Don't let the clouds of your playfulness remain unexploded and leave me smile less (SMILE).

@ Pablo You really sound so realistic and fair in your opinion.Should I tell you that my 'Mother tongue" Kashmiri has no provision for the most important Present Continuous Tense,and that does not make it a less important language.The only difference it makes is that it has a different mechanism for conveying meanings. English does not have any provision for Future Tense (it has one for talking about future time) ; that does not make it a less important language. A language belongs to one who has the capability to 'handle' it.English as much my language as Arabic ,Urdu and Kashmiri. Thanks for encouragement.I would like to quote an urdu verse: Mein kisi shaks say bayzar nahein housakta, Koii zaraa bhi tou baykaar nahein housakta. Pyaar itnaa hai insaan ki hkatayoon say mujhaay Ki firishta mera myyaar nahein housakta. Translation: (I can't afford to have any grudges against anyone, Because even a speck cannot be without a use. I am in love with human frailties Because I can't judge men in comparison to Angels.) @ George It is one more incident of the failure of communication. I have always been averse to the practice of teaching things “about language" to students other than to Pupil Teachers (trainee teachers).We don't teach such matter ,at least at secondary level. It is language (English) that we introduce there (in the classroom) and not matter about language (Grammar).I am on the forum (english.wiziq.com),the most appropriate forum for such stuff, meant for Teachers of English (fortunately, including English Teachers) and, feel that no teacher can afford to be ignorant of such matters. We as teachers are supposed to know ,not only the target language but also almost all about the language. I would love to tell you,on sidelines ,that the first Urdu Grammar was made by a non-native speaker of Urdu. Jesperson,too, was not a native speaker of English. I have found something interesting about the mechanism of English tense system, something overlooked so far.I t would be really fun to share it with you. Though, I shall have to time it properly.Jane Austin's "Kitty" would get reprimanded for untimely coughs. I enjoy to be playful. Don't let the clouds of your playfulness remain unexploded and leave me smile less (SMILE).

Save Cancel

Dear Benjamin,
I will alwalys look forward to guidance and encouragement from friends and experts like you.
Rafi

Dear Benjamin, I will alwalys look forward to guidance and encouragement from friends and experts like you. Rafi

Save Cancel

@ George
Let me take up the thread where Benjamin has left it hanging.
I quote him ( highlighting/underlining is mine)
“His point is that English has no verb conjugation for the simple future tense. We have one for the simple present (i.e., I eat...), simple past, (i.e., I ate), but nothing for the future tense . Instead, we express the future tense a variety of ways:
It is not my point that English verb phrase has no conjugation for the future tense. It is statement of fact. What is the future tense form for eat. None, because English verb phrase has no provision for Future time. It has for future time.
His other statement “We express the future tense (in) a variety of ways: needs to be clarified. What are these varieties of ways: present tense and past tense.
These variety of ways a can be replaced by :
We express the future tense by means of the use of present tense and past tense.
And we don't express “future tense" but “future time" in variety of ways. It is the result of confusing 'Time" with “tense". Tense is a grammatical category and time a semantic category.
This is how we conjugate verbs
Present Tense Past tense Future Tense (?)
Eat ate No future tense form
Am was No future tense form
Can could No future tense form
May might No future tense form
Will would No future tense form
Shall should No future tense form

This is how I want to clarify my point further:
I am going to work. ( Present continuous tense conveying Present time) .
'am' (signals present tense and “v+ ing" signals (Continuous aspect)
I am going to work tomorrow. (Present continuous tense)
'am' signals present tense , “v+ ing" signals continuous aspect) and 'tomorrow' (not a verb) indicating future time.



I would like to recollect and record what happened in one of my English Grammar classrooms back in 1973. I had explained the below mentioned tense table to the learners saying among other things ,erroneously, that 'will' /shall is future tense :
Simple present Tense Simple Preset Tense Simple future tense
I play cricket I played cricket I will play cricket the next week,
................................ ........................................ .................................
................................ ........................................ .................................

................................ ........................................ .................................
This is what happened on that auspicious day :

Sir asked one of the students (he would always ask thought provoking questions in my class) “what is the present tense of play and, please, sir, write it on the Blackboard."
I did what he wanted to be done. He continued and gave the following more verbs:
Could
Used to
Should
Would
Was
This is what I wrote on the blackboard;
Black board summary:
Past Tense Present Tense
Played play
Could can
Used to x
Should shall
Would will
Was is

Then, the student said, sir, I feel confused, confused about shall and will. Here you write and agree that will is the present tense form of past tense would but yesterday you told us that will is future tense. It was a revelation. The evident idea had never struck me. The book “How Children Learn" by John Holt came to my rescue and ,shooting a smile at the students, I said , “Yes, it is evident ,it is so clear ,I should not have missed it , the contradiction (dichotomy).I will find it out and let you know next time.
No colleague in the school could help. I went to one of the teachers (a renowned senior teacher) but could get no guidance.
I thought and succeeded in resolving the problem to the extent that I could understand that all 'is not well with the use of“future tense" in English language
1. I am going to play.
2.I am going to play in the field.
Both these sentences are in present tense because of the presence of present tense verb form 'am' as the left most element of the verb phrase 'am going'. Everything pertaining to verb phrase with reference to these sentences begins and ends with the verb phrase “am going'. ( 'am' signalling present tense and 'going ' signalling continuous aspect.)
Applying the same analysis and rationale to the sentences:
3. I am going to play tomorrow.
4. I am going to play in the playfield tomorrow.
5. I will play tomorrow.
6. I will play in the playfield tomorrow.
I felt convinced that sentences 3,4,5 and 6 above carry present tense in exactly the tune as in case of sentences 1 and 2.
The verb phrase in both the sentences 3 and 4 is “am going" as in sentence 1 and 2. Isn't it? How come that in 1 and 2 the verb phrase connotes present tense and in 3 and 4 the same verb phrase connotes future tense, SMILE! Is that how the verb phrase behaves in English language. Present tense here and future tense there. No.
Likewise ' will ' is the present tense form of 'would'. If you agree to this then how does it become “future tense" in the sentence “ I will work tomorrow."
The problem lies in the fact that people confuse the terms 'time' and ' tense' as synonyms, which they aren't. Time does not mean tense.
I am going to play tomorrow/I will work tomorrow are present tense used for conveying future time.
English language does not have (inflexion for ) Future Tense. So future time cannot be indicted through the means of Future tense form (it is non-exist ant) How do we, then, speak of /indicate future time. Either by means of present or past tense.
Do look forward to what I have to say on “English Tense system “ in near future. I spoke about future time by means of Present tense, Didn't I?
I need to quote you:
“If I return to this forum tomorrow, will it be by chance or because I knew what was coming? I will come again tomorrow. I will be expecting a reply. But, did I just ask you in a futre tense or not? 'Tis for you to decide ;- ) "
If the temperament/behaviour of English verb phrase is to be believed, you cannot speak of future tense, and I as a student of language cannot belie the temperament and behaviour of the English verb phrase.
You did not ask me in future tense, it is present tense.
Your playful mode is a bonus in the world marred by ........


@ Benjamin
Could you do a favour by filling up the given blanks given under “Y" in the perspective of the material appearing under “X":
“X"
This is how English verb phrase conveys future time in absence of Future Tense?
1. I am going to work. ( Present continuous tense conveying Present time) .
'am' (signals present tense and “v+ ing" signals (Continuous aspect)
2. I am going to work tomorrow. (Present continuous tense)
'am' signals present tense , “v+ ing" signals continuous aspect) and 'tomorrow' (not a verb) indicating future time.
3. I will work tomorrow. (simple present tense conveying future time)
'Will' present tense conveying present tense on account of its being the prest form of the past tense form 'would' and left most particle of the verb phrase “will work.
, tomorrow (not a verb) indicating future time.

“Y"
1. I am going to work. (......................................................,..............................................................) .
'am' (..................................... and “v+ ing" signals (................................................)
2. I am going to work tomorrow. (.....................................................................)
'am' signals ................................... , “v+ ing" signals '.........................) and 'tomorrow' (................................) indicating ...........................................
3. I will work tomorrow. (..................................................... conveying future time)
'Will' ....................... conveying ........................... on account of its being the ................ of the past tense form 'would' and left most particle of the verb phrase “will work.
, tomorrow (not a verb) indicating ...................................

@ George Let me take up the thread where Benjamin has left it hanging. I quote him ( highlighting/underlining is mine) “His point is that English has no verb conjugation for the simple future tense. We have one for the simple present (i.e., I eat...), simple past, (i.e., I ate), but nothing for the future tense . Instead, we express the future tense a variety of ways: It is not my point that English verb phrase has no conjugation for the future tense. It is statement of fact. What is the future tense form for eat. None, because English verb phrase has no provision for Future time. It has for future time. His other statement “We express the future tense (in) a variety of ways: needs to be clarified. What are these varieties of ways: present tense and past tense. These variety of ways a can be replaced by : We express the future tense by means of the use of present tense and past tense. And we don't express “future tense" but “future time" in variety of ways. It is the result of confusing 'Time" with “tense". Tense is a grammatical category and time a semantic category. This is how we conjugate verbs Present Tense Past tense Future Tense (?) Eat ate No future tense form Am was No future tense form Can could No future tense form May might No future tense form Will would No future tense form Shall should No future tense form This is how I want to clarify my point further: I am going to work. ( Present continuous tense conveying Present time) . 'am' (signals present tense and “v+ ing" signals (Continuous aspect) I am going to work tomorrow. (Present continuous tense) 'am' signals present tense , “v+ ing" signals continuous aspect) and 'tomorrow' (not a verb) indicating future time. I would like to recollect and record what happened in one of my English Grammar classrooms back in 1973. I had explained the below mentioned tense table to the learners saying among other things ,erroneously, that 'will' /shall is future tense : Simple present Tense Simple Preset Tense Simple future tense I play cricket I played cricket I will play cricket the next week, ................................ ........................................ ................................. ................................ ........................................ ................................. ................................ ........................................ ................................. This is what happened on that auspicious day : Sir asked one of the students (he would always ask thought provoking questions in my class) “what is the present tense of play and, please, sir, write it on the Blackboard." I did what he wanted to be done. He continued and gave the following more verbs: Could Used to Should Would Was This is what I wrote on the blackboard; Black board summary: Past Tense Present Tense Played play Could can Used to x Should shall Would will Was is Then, the student said, sir, I feel confused, confused about shall and will. Here you write and agree that will is the present tense form of past tense would but yesterday you told us that will is future tense. It was a revelation. The evident idea had never struck me. The book “How Children Learn" by John Holt came to my rescue and ,shooting a smile at the students, I said , “Yes, it is evident ,it is so clear ,I should not have missed it , the contradiction (dichotomy).I will find it out and let you know next time. No colleague in the school could help. I went to one of the teachers (a renowned senior teacher) but could get no guidance. I thought and succeeded in resolving the problem to the extent that I could understand that all 'is not well with the use of“future tense" in English language 1. I am going to play. 2.I am going to play in the field. Both these sentences are in present tense because of the presence of present tense verb form 'am' as the left most element of the verb phrase 'am going'. Everything pertaining to verb phrase with reference to these sentences begins and ends with the verb phrase “am going'. ( 'am' signalling present tense and 'going ' signalling continuous aspect.) Applying the same analysis and rationale to the sentences: 3. I am going to play tomorrow. 4. I am going to play in the playfield tomorrow. 5. I will play tomorrow. 6. I will play in the playfield tomorrow. I felt convinced that sentences 3,4,5 and 6 above carry present tense in exactly the tune as in case of sentences 1 and 2. The verb phrase in both the sentences 3 and 4 is “am going" as in sentence 1 and 2. Isn't it? How come that in 1 and 2 the verb phrase connotes present tense and in 3 and 4 the same verb phrase connotes future tense, SMILE! Is that how the verb phrase behaves in English language. Present tense here and future tense there. No. Likewise ' will ' is the present tense form of 'would'. If you agree to this then how does it become “future tense" in the sentence “ I will work tomorrow." The problem lies in the fact that people confuse the terms 'time' and ' tense' as synonyms, which they aren't. Time does not mean tense. I am going to play tomorrow/I will work tomorrow are present tense used for conveying future time. English language does not have (inflexion for ) Future Tense. So future time cannot be indicted through the means of Future tense form (it is non-exist ant) How do we, then, speak of /indicate future time. Either by means of present or past tense. Do look forward to what I have to say on “English Tense system “ in near future. I spoke about future time by means of Present tense, Didn't I? I need to quote you: “If I return to this forum tomorrow, will it be by chance or because I knew what was coming? I will come again tomorrow. I will be expecting a reply. But, did I just ask you in a futre tense or not? 'Tis for you to decide ;- ) " If the temperament/behaviour of English verb phrase is to be believed, you cannot speak of future tense, and I as a student of language cannot belie the temperament and behaviour of the English verb phrase. You did not ask me in future tense, it is present tense. Your playful mode is a bonus in the world marred by ........ @ Benjamin Could you do a favour by filling up the given blanks given under “Y" in the perspective of the material appearing under “X": “X" This is how English verb phrase conveys future time in absence of Future Tense? 1. I am going to work. ( Present continuous tense conveying Present time) . 'am' (signals present tense and “v+ ing" signals (Continuous aspect) 2. I am going to work tomorrow. (Present continuous tense) 'am' signals present tense , “v+ ing" signals continuous aspect) and 'tomorrow' (not a verb) indicating future time. 3. I will work tomorrow. (simple present tense conveying future time) 'Will' present tense conveying present tense on account of its being the prest form of the past tense form 'would' and left most particle of the verb phrase “will work. , tomorrow (not a verb) indicating future time. “Y" 1. I am going to work. (......................................................,..............................................................) . 'am' (..................................... and “v+ ing" signals (................................................) 2. I am going to work tomorrow. (.....................................................................) 'am' signals ................................... , “v+ ing" signals '.........................) and 'tomorrow' (................................) indicating ........................................... 3. I will work tomorrow. (..................................................... conveying future time) 'Will' ....................... conveying ........................... on account of its being the ................ of the past tense form 'would' and left most particle of the verb phrase “will work. , tomorrow (not a verb) indicating ...................................

Save Cancel