MAIN DIVISIONS OF TIME

(A) Simple past time. – For this there is in English one tense, the, preterit, e. g. wrote. [...]

(B) Simple present time. – For this those languages that have tense distinctions in their verbs generally use the present tense. [...]

(C) Simple future time. – It is easy to understand that expressions for times to come are less definite and less explicit in our languages than those for the past: we do not know so much about the future as about the past and are therefore obliged to talk about it in a more vague way. [...]

(1) The present tense is used in a future sense. This is particularly easy when the sentence contains a precise indication of time [...]: I start to-morrow. [...]

(2) Volition. Both E. will and Dan. vil to a certain degree retain traces of the original meaning of real volition, and therefore E. will go cannot be given as a pure «future tense», though it approaches that function, as seen especially when it is applied to natural phenomena as it will certainly rain before night. [...]

(3) Thought, intention. [...] This cannot easily be kept apart from volition.

(4) Obligation. This is the original meaning of OE. sceal, now shall, Dutch zal. In English the meaning of obligation is nearly effaced, but the use of the auxiliary is restricted to the first person in assertions and to the second person in questions, though in some classes of subordinate clauses it is used in all three persons. [...]

(5) Motion. Verbs meaning ‘go’ and ‘come’ are frequently used to indicate futurity [...]: I am going to write. [...]

(6) Possibility, E. may frequently denotes a some what vague futurity: this may end in disaster. [...]

Next we come to consider the subordinate divisions of time, i.e. points in time anterior or posterior to some other point (past or future) mentioned or implied in the sentence concerned.

(Aa). Before-past time. This requires to be mentioned so frequently that many languages have developed special tenses for it: ante-preterit (pluperfect, past perfect), either simple as Lat. scripseram or periphrastic, as E. had written [...].

The relations between the two «times», the simple past and the before-past, may be represented graphically thus, the line denoting the time it took to write the letter, and the point с the time of his coming:

I had written the letter before he came – he came after I had written the letter: ____ c.

He came before I had written the letter = either I finished writing the letter after he had come, or I wrote the letter after he had come: ____ or с ____.

c

(Ac). After-past time. I know of no language which possesses a simple tense (post-preterit) for this notion. A usual expression is by a verb denoting destiny or obligation, in E. most often was to: Next year she gave birth to a son who was to cause her great anxiety. [...]

(Ca). Before-future time. The corresponding tense (the ante-future) is usually termed futurum exactum or the future perfect. Lat. scripsero, in our modern lan­guages periphrastic: I shall have written (he will have written) [...].

As above, under Aa, we may here give a graphical representation of the time-relation:

I shall have written the letter before he comes = he will come after I have written (shall have written) the letter: ____ c.

He wilt come before I (shall) have written the letter = either I shall finish writing the letter after he has come, or I shall write the letter after he has come:

____or с____.

c

(Cc). After-future. This has chiefly a theoretic interest, and I doubt very much whether forms like I shall be going to write (which implies nearness in time to the chief future lime) or scripturus ero are of very frequent occurrence. [...]

Date: 2015-02-28; view: 518