|
|
A concept of time
I said: «If Now is 0, does anyone notice it at all?»
Ant_222 wrote:
<<Of course yes, because Now determines the state of the Universe. Different moments - different states. If Now was motionless, the Universe would be freezed in a constant state, nothing would be changing.>>
My reply:
Because Now is important, it cannot be just "0". Nevertheless, it is not really Now that determines the state of the Universe. You have overstated. You are confusing the concepts of importance. Just because human beings are important, it doesn't mean they determine the state of the Universe. So too is Now.
You have mentioned how Now is moving:
<<In NOW is moving towards future, constatly converting the future into the past.>>
So, may I ask, will NOW not convert itself into the past?
Do you really believe this: As time goes by, a future time like "Next Week" will come to past, but Now itself will not?
I am afraid that both Now and the future will eventually come to the past.
One may at any time choose a moment to determine things around him. We call this moment Now. It can be very long, actually. For example, NOW we are discussing the use of English tense. This Now exists as long as we discuss. If one calls it "0", I don't know how to interpret the symbol.
Because of different activities, we use a lot of time spans to match them:
Past: yesterday, last week, in 1987, in 1887, in 1542, etc.
Present: now, today, this week, this year, this century, this epoch, etc.
Future: tomorrow, next week, next year, next century, etc.
I really don't know how to link "0", (0, +inf), or (-inf, 0) to time. And then, as you say, "it's better to call it N(t); Past=(-inf, N(t)); Future=(N(t), +inf), where t is the current time." It seems that these symbols can be shifted at any time, at any way you want.
However, if you refer me to a web page that has stated and listed all these symbols, I will learn them and discuss with you. Otherwise, I would avoid the meaningless symbols that are meaningful only to you.
I wrote:
"Because there have been many grammar books teaching that, as in Ex2, we are using the Future Tense in Will or Shall, I don't think it is an absurdity for me to keep the name of the tense. Rather, it is absurd for some people merely claim Will/Shall is not the Future Tense, but they fail to theorize whether it is past tense or present tense."
Right under my comment above, D6233RS wrote:
<<There's no future tense.>>
My reply:
You just proved that I am correct. People are prone to say it is not a Future Tense, and that's it. Period. No reason is needed, they think. No name is need, they think.
What will you say to "I will see the movie tomorrow"? Since its tense is not Future Tense, is it present tense or past tense? Or there is no tense here?
"As I say, people cannot define the future, so they claim there is no Future Tense."
This is just plain tosh.
The basis for no future tense in English is purely grammatical, not "philosophical." Tense requires verb inflection. The English verb has no inflection to mark future time; it relies on the construct "will+base verb (infinitive)" or the use of a time marker ("I'm working tomorrow").
"'I will see the movie tomorrow'? Since its tense is not Future Tense, is it present tense or past tense? Or there is no tense here?"
There's no tense. But there is future time. Not all languages require tense to express time.
D6233RS wrote:
<<The basis for no future tense in English is purely grammatical, not "philosophical." Tense requires verb inflection.>>
My reply:
1. Why does the criterion of a tense require verb inflection? Where did this rule come from? Do you know that many grammar books are teaching that there is Future Tense in using Will or sometimes Shall? Why are these teachers not aware of your criterion? They won't agree to your basis, will they?
2. Why will you believe in some rules few people know? In contrast, will you keep to the agreement that tense is used to express time? If you do, why there are so many tenses but we have only no more than a few concepts of time: past, present, future? As a result, both Simple Past and Present Perfect express a past action:
Ex: "I lost/have lost my wallet!"
== Will you still keep to the agreement that tense is used to express time?
3. Sometimes we use "DO/DID+base verb" as Simple Present or Simple Past:
Ex: Do you work here?
Ex: Did he see you?
Ex: I do work here
Ex: I did tell him that.
Can we say we have no tense in these situations, because the "base verb" has no inflection?
--------------------
<<The English verb has no inflection to mark future time; it relies on the construct "will+base verb (infinitive)" or the use of a time marker ("I'm working tomorrow").>.
My reply:
The argument in itself is contradictory. As you say, "will+base verb (infinitive)" is the format of expressing the future action. Is it not enough?
On the other hand, "I'm working tomorrow" is not a Future Tense. It is Present Progressive tense. And 'Tomorrow' does not have to be a future time, as we all know. Tomorrow is within This Week, why must you claim it is a future time?
Also, without time marker, how will you know Simple Past expresses past time? May you tell me what is the past time in the following examples?
Ex: Joe married Mary.
Ex: He lost his watch.
== Without time marker, Simple Past also fails to express a past time. In this case, is it a tense or not? Can't you see, "The English verb has no inflection to mark past time"?
I said: "'I will see the movie tomorrow'? Since (you say) its tense is not Future Tense, is it present tense or past tense? Or there is no tense here?"
D6233RS wrote:
<<There's no tense. But there is future time. Not all languages require tense to express time.>>
My reply: Please be noted again that Tomorrow is within this present week or present month, so it is a present time.
On the other hand, if you accept "There is no tense", then I will use no tense to say anything:
Ex: "Because there will have been many grammar books teaching that, as in Ex2, we will be using the Future Tense in Will or Shall, I will not think it will be an absurdity for me to keep the name of the tense. Rather, it will be absurd for some people merely claim Will/Shall will be not the Future Tense, but they will fail to theorize whether it will be past tense or present tense."
== I will use WILL only, and use no tense. Will this be OK? After all, as you will know, "Not all languages will require tense to express time."
However, it will not sound right to me. What about you? You will know the answer: You will not tell us when we will use no tense. Will you know when we will use what-you-will-call "no tense"?
Claiming the Future Tense as "(there is) no tense" displays a bad strategy in explaining tense. If I use WILL all the way, you cannot judge that I have misused a tense, because I didn't use any tense at all!!
I am afraid people have spent too much time in denying the name of "Future Tense", but spent too little time in explaining when to use "will+base verb (infinitive)".
"Do you work here?"
No tense/present time.
"Did he see you?"
Past tense ("did")/past time
"I do work here"
No tense/present time.
"I did tell him that."
Past tense ("did")/past time.
"As you say, 'will+base verb (infinitive)' is the format of expressing the future action. Is it not enough?"
It certainly is. It expresses future action (time) without resorting to a future tense.
"'I'm working tomorrow' is not a Future Tense."
No, it's not. It's present tense ("I'm") but it expresses future time (thanks to the adverb "tomorrow").
"Can't you see, 'The English verb has no inflection to mark past time'?"
But English does have a past tense so I'm not sure what you think you're saying here:
"Joe married Mary."
Past tense of "marry"/past time.
"He lost his watch."
Past tense of "lose"/past time.
"Please be noted again that Tomorrow is within this present week or present month, so it is a present time."
Hello? Unless I'm very much mistaken, tomorrow is always in the future. So how can an action taking place tomorrow be present time?
It can be present tense but it can never be present time.
"Hello?"
Ha hah. I can't wait for entense's reply of "My reply:". You see, old chap, "A concept of time" is a philosophically pseudo-supernaturally charged notion that only highbrow intellects of entense's calibre are capable of hypothesising over. The other prerequisite is, you have to make nonnative errors a la engtense in the circular whyfor.
D6233RS wrote:
<<Hello? Unless I'm very much mistaken, tomorrow is always in the future. So how can an action taking place tomorrow be present time?>>
My reply:
What about This Week? Is it a present time or a future time? The adjective 'present' in time adverbials will be understood: this (present) week, this (present) year, the (present) epoch, etc. Indeed, if you search exact match for these time adverbials with the explicit adjective 'present', you will still find them: "this present week/month/year", "the present epoch". They are present time adverbials. But Tomorrow is within this week or this year. Then how would you call a date in the present time a future time?
Will you call a date within a past time "from 1954 to 2001" a present time or future time?
D6233RS wrote:
<<"Do you work here?"
No tense/present time.
"Did he see you?"
Past tense ("did")/past time
"I do work here"
No tense/present time.>>
My reply:
I am very much surprised indeed. My goodness, THEY ARE TENSES, expressed in negative form and question. I am afraid that, for you, there are so many sentences without using tense. Try the following web pages for elementary knowledge:
==============
QUOTE 1:
In the simple present tense, negative and question forms are made using the auxiliary verb "do". This page explains the rules.
1. Forming a negative
Negatives in the simple present are formed by adding don't or doesn't before the simple form of the verb:
Example:
I don't sing
You don't sing
He doesn't sing
She doesn't sing
It doesn't sing
We don't sing
They don't sing
In other words, only THIRD PERSON SINGULAR subjects (he, she and it) have DOESN'T -- the rest have DON'T.
2. Forming a yes/no question
Yes/no questions are also created using the auxiliary do. This time, the auxiliary is placed before the subject. Here are the rules:
Example:
Do I sing?
Do you sing?
Does he sing?
Does she sing?
Does it sing?
Do we sing?
Do they sing?
== http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/330/grammar/presnq.htm
==============
QUOTE 2:
How do we use the Simple Present Tense?
Look at these examples:
I live in New York.
The Moon goes round the Earth.
John drives a taxi.
He does not drive a bus.
We do not work at night.
Do you play football?
== http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verb-tenses_present.htm
==============
Actually, I can give much more web pages with similar examples if you need.
On the other hand, may you be kind enough to show us web pages to support your declaration or example of "no tense"?
D6233RS wrote:
<<But English does have a past tense so I'm not sure what you think you're saying here:
"Joe married Mary."
Past tense of "marry"/past time.
"He lost his watch."
Past tense of "lose"/past time.>>
My reply:
Then English does have a Future Tense indicating future time:
Ex: Joe will marry Mary.
== Future Tense of "marry"/future time.
Ex: He will lose his watch easily.
== Future Tense of "lose"/future time.
“What about This Week? Is it a present time or a future time? The adjective 'present' in time adverbials will be understood: this (present) week, this (present) year, the (present) epoch, etc. Indeed, if you search exact match for these time adverbials with the explicit adjective 'present', you will still find them: ‘this present week/month/year’, ‘the present epoch’. They are present time adverbials. But Tomorrow is within this week or this year. Then how would you call a date in the present time a future time?”
“Will you call a date within a past time ‘from 1954 to 2001’ a present time or future time?”
Again, I frankly haven’t the faintest idea what you’re trying to say here. Silly me, but I thought we were discussing the time/tense aspects of English verbs.
“I am very much surprised indeed. My goodness, THEY ARE TENSES”
The answer is: some of them are and some of them aren’t. The verb form “did” is very clearly a tense; it’s the form the verb “do” takes to express past action. So that’s an inflection and a bona fide tense in grammatical terms. But “do” isn’t a real tense because the verb manifests absolutely no inflection at all to express present action. Look at these examples:
I will do the work next week
We do like arguing about grammar.
Do your homework now!
Jim has to do some gardening this morning.
In all four examples, “do” remains in its “base form” - unchanged and uninflected. Yet it respectively expresses future time, present time, the imperative and the infinitive.
How does it do that? Simply by syntax and context. It’s the position of “do” in relation to the other words around it that determines what “do” expresses.
That’s not tense.
“Do I sing?
Do you sing?
Does he sing?
Does she sing?
Does it sing?
Do we sing?
Do they sing?”
This kind of arbitrary conjugation typifies the sort of English grammar touted by so-called “experts.” A more common-sense rendition would be:
Do (I, you, we, they) sing?
Does (he, she, it) sing?
The only time “do” takes on tense here is in the third person singular when it becomes “does.”
“Then English does have a Future Tense indicating future time:
Ex: Joe will marry Mary.
== Future Tense of "marry"/future time.
Ex: He will lose his watch easily.
== Future Tense of "lose"/future time.”
OK, once more now. Neither “will marry” nor “will lose” represents a true future tense. That’s because “marry” and “lose” do not change in any way from the “base form” in order to indicate the future. It is simply their position after “will” that alerts an English speaker that the action takes place in the future. This is not tense.
By way of contrast, French (for example) does have a true future tense. “Perdre” (“lose”) becomes “[il] perdra” to indicate “[he] will lose.”
Now, I grant you that, when trying to teach English to say, a Spanish speaker, it’s quite handy to create artificial conjugations (I walk, you walk, he walks, we walk, you walk, they walk) and tenses (he will walk). These help the non-native speaker compare English verb structure to their own.
But from a grammatical viewpoint, these are merely “useful fictions.”
To D62NN??
Why have you chosen such a weird dynamic nick?
To engtense:
Without all that «meagningless» symbols...
Things are changing with time.
But: at every fixed moment of time things are «freezed».
The current moment of time is called «Now».
Since things are changing, we know that «Now» is changing.
This is the flow of time: as «Now» goes through a series of time moments, the universe changes its states. That's like the film in a movie camera «captures» snapshots of its viewfield, 24 times a second. When we watch the movie, we see that sequense of snapshots. But at any given monent only one snapshot is projected onto the screen (like «Now»).
The moments, that «Now» has crossed (went through), belong to what we call «The Past (=Passed by «Now»)».
The moments, that «Now» is still to go through, belong to what we call «The Future».
The moment, that «Now» currently represents, we call «The Present»m or just «now».
Every action occupies a time period.
If the time period occupied by an action consists of moments of «The Past» (is located to the left of «Now»), we call it a past action.
If the time period occupied by an action consists of moments of «The Fututre» (is located to the right of «Now»), we call it a future action.
If the time period occupied by an action consists of moments of both «The Past» and «The Fututre» («Now» intersects the action's period, dividing the action into two parts), we call it a future action.
That's all.
"To D62NN??
Why have you chosen such a weird dynamic nick?"
It's effectively a serial number.
Unfortunately, the Antimoon forum allows impostors to use your name and pass their postings off as yours. Very annoying.
To counter this, I have a simple program that generates a unique serial number for each post.
An impostor can only try to pass himself/herself off as me by either:
1. duplicating my serial number (which is no good because a second posting under the same number would be an obvious fake); or
2. by approximating one of my serial numbers (but then he/she does not know the sequence so can quickly be identified as a fake).
D6233RS wrote:
<<I will do the work next week
We do like arguing about grammar.
Do your homework now!
Jim has to do some gardening this morning.
In all four examples, “do” remains in its “base form” - unchanged and uninflected. Yet it respectively expresses future time, present time, the imperative and the infinitive.
How does it do that? Simply by syntax and context. It’s the position of “do” in relation to the other words around it that determines what “do” expresses.
That’s not tense. >>
My reply:
As I said, you have spent too much time in denying the conventional names of tense.
Those who claim there is no Future Tense should have known that, once they are challenged of the calling, they will have to deny also many other callings of tenses.
It is just like one has typed his pen name incorrectly, he then has to go on claiming "I meant to do it. I will use different pen names for discussion, a new name for each post."
I am afraid that, if one's pen name has been evilly used by others, one may report to the forum's holder. He has your IP and will help you about it. You should not let the bad memory overshadow you, and victimize other readers.
|