TJ,
One way to deal with two tenses is to think of "finite" as a larger
category than tense and add "modal auxiliary" as a finite category.
That gets tricky because some of the modal pairs can act like present
and past tense versions of each other (can and could in some
meanings)but gives us the freedom to talk about the ways in which
modals add other kinds of meaning that interact with time in unique
ways.
You can say that "Joe will go home" is a present time expression of
certainty about something that hasn't happened yet. If it's a "future
auxiliary" (as is sometimes thought), then how do we deal with "Joe
might go home" or "should go home" or "could go home"? They all make
different kinds of judgment about likelihood or obligation or ability
(and the like.)
Historically, these modals have grammaticalized from lexical verbs.
More recent additions might be "be going to", "ought to," "be able to"
and "have to."
It is much more customary these days to think of "perfect" and
"progressive" as aspect. The verb phrase itself would include the
lexical verb and its auxiliaries. It has a combined meaning, I think,
in the same way a noun phrase would, with different elements
contributing to the meaning in different (highly patterned) ways. If
it's included, finite is always first. We can have progressive aspect
or perfect aspect without tense (nonfinite clauses.) "The guy leaning
against the fence is my brother." "The trees downed in the storm were
healthy." "Leaning" and "downed" carry aspect, but are not finite, not
"tensed." "is" and "were" are the finite verbs.
>
Craig
Bruce,
> Two comments: If we are going to insist on there being only two
> tenses,
> do we then say that in the sentence "Joe will go home" the verb is in
> the present tense while inthe sentence "Joe would go home if he could"
> the verb is in the past tense?
>
> Second, how does one deal with verbs that were irregular in Old
> English
> that have changed since then and may be found in two shapes?
> Joe has forgot the combination.
> Joe has forgotten the combination.
> I'm having trouble understanding why it is not possible to take
> "finished"
> as a past participle when it follows has, had, or will have.
> tj
>
>
> On Wednesday 01/05/2011 at 6:24 pm, Bruce Despain wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bill,
>> Ooops! I see you wanted a theory neutral term. I don't think this is
>> possible. Giving it a code name of any sort suggests a system has
>> been used for assigning the codes.
>>
>> --- [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>
>> From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Suggestion of Distinct Name for Past Perfect Tense
>> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 16:14:48 -0800
>>
>>
>>
>> My own suggestion is that there are only two tenses in English:
>> Present and Past. Tense only appears on the first element of the verb
>> phrase. This is a true inflection of that verb and generally sets the
>> time of the situation denoted. The other verb phrases that are often
>> called tenses are actually better thought of as aspect (progressive,
>> perfect), mood (indicative, subjunctive), voice (active, passive) and
>> are mediated by the use of helping verbs in combination with
>> infinitives and participles (imperfect, perfect). The syntax is
>> rather firm with an established order of verbs to indicate the various
>> combinations of features.
>>
>> I say rather firm because there are certain modals that can mimic
>> these forms, as: "I had rather go fishing" and "I had better keep
>> quiet." These comparative forms of adjectives have squirreled
>> themselves into the mix. In this case it seems the adjective splits
>> the perfect aspect so that instead of a perfect participle following
>> the "had" the bare infinitive is right at home. (Only the past tense
>> of "have" is possible here, presumably because it has been backshifted
>> to express an irrealis mood.)
>>
>> Bruce
>> --- [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>
>> From: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Suggestion of Distinct Name for Past Perfect Tense
>> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 17:24:01 -0600
>>
>> Bill,
>> Help to understand how "finished" in the construction the
>> clause "Joe had finished his work by quitting time" is a past
>> form of the verb. Why isn't it simply the past participle? It
>> may be confusing when a regular verb appears in such a sequence, but
>> the distinction of forms is clearly there with
>> irregular verbs: "Joe had seen the outcome of the experiment before
>> he left the lab."
>> tj
>>
>>
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
>> "Join or leave the list"
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this
>> LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
>> leave the list"
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this
>> LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
>> leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
