From: Patrick C. Ryan
Message: 19160
Date: 2003-02-24
----- Original Message -----
From: "P&G" <petegray@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Laryngeal theory as an unnatural
> "he is to go" as a simple future
> > In what way is it "simple"?
>
> And it is also not really a "future" tense. It makes a statement about
> present obligation or expectation to perform a future action. It is not
> equivalent to "he will go". This is more than "future".
[PCR]
Trask denied (with others) that "he will go" is a simple future prediction, and claimed it had an intentional modality. He therefore claimed that English has no non-modal future.
Since the future has not yet occurred, a simple future should make a prediction without modal implications, and expectation is, on my opinion, simple prediction.
"Obligation" is conveyed by "shall" or "should".
If I write: "We are to have dinner at 5", I do not sense any obligatory modality.
Pat
PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@... (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío, geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit, hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)