3

According to A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, Tense is defined as follows:

Tense. A system marked by verb inflection or auxiliaries whose basic use to locate the situation in time: I liked it (past tense, past time), I like it(present tense, present time).

However, the author also points out:

..., English is not one of them: it has no future tense. It does have several ways of talking about future time, and the most basic one does involve the auxiliary will.

These two quotes made me puzzled because, as noted above, Tense is denoted by inflection or auxiliaries and the auxiliary will seems to clearly meet the criteria. In conclusion, my question is

  • Why doesn't the auxiliary will qualify as future tense?
  • 2
    The point is that "will" is an auxiliary of mood, not tense – BillJ Aug 14 '16 at 13:58
  • @BillJ If the auxiliary will is not for Tense, exactly when is Tense marked by auxiliaries? Can you give me an example? – b1sub Aug 14 '16 at 14:02
  • The perfect tense is marked by the perfect auxiliary "have". – BillJ Aug 14 '16 at 14:06
  • @BillJ Oh, that clearly holds. – b1sub Aug 14 '16 at 14:07
  • 1
    @Il-seobBae Just so you know, a lot of people would dispute calling the perfect a tense, even ignoring the inflections/auxiliary debate. That is because it doesn't directly refer to a time but instead marks an earlier time to the main tense. So some people call it "secondary tense". – curiousdannii Aug 14 '16 at 14:09
4

The author seems inconsistent to me.

I am someone who says that English doesn't have a future tense, but that is because I limit what is counted as 'tense' to what is morphologically marked (i.e., by verb inflection.)

But if you're going to include auxiliaries in the tense system, then will would surely qualify.

I can think of only one way for what you've quoted to not be inconsistent: if they meant that a language can mark tense either by verb inflection or auxiliaries, but not both. If that is what they meant, then because English clearly does mark the past tense morphologically, will would be excluded. But if that is what they meant they could have explained it rather more clearly!

  • I strongly agree with you. I also think that it's logical to confine 'tense' to be the one that's marked only by verb inflection. – b1sub Aug 14 '16 at 13:58
  • 1
    @BillJ will can be a marker of mood, in sentences like "I should do it" vs "I will do it", in which case the will is usually stressed. But when unstressed in current English it's pretty much a straight temporal marker. If it's contracted then it might always be a straight temporal marker? I'm not sure. – curiousdannii Aug 14 '16 at 14:05
  • 1
    Syntactically, the modal auxiliary verb "will" has two tenses: present and preterite. Semantically, it is used to make reference to future time (about 80% of its occurrences, I believe) but also for expressing volition (as in "I keep telling my son to get his hair cut, but he won't; so I've told him he has to". – BillJ Aug 14 '16 at 14:15
  • 1
    ... As John Lawler has written, 'But English is almost uninflected, unlike Latin, and there are really only two inflectional tenses, on the Latin model, left: present (am/are/is, go(es), walk(s), etc.) and past [purists may prefer "aorist"] (was/were, went, walked, etc.).' // This viewpoint would render 'Tense. A system marked by ... auxiliaries' unacceptable (as curiousdannii essentially points out). – Edwin Ashworth Aug 14 '16 at 20:40
  • 1
    The perfect auxiliary "have" (in combination with a following past participle) locates a situation in past time just as much as the preterite does. The inflectional preterite and analytic perfect have a great deal in common, and hence some grammars treat the latter as a tense, not an aspect. And inflection is common throughout all English systems. – BillJ Aug 15 '16 at 8:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.