Re: [tied] "Simple" Future

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham
<richard.wordingham@...>" <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick C. Ryan" <proto-
> language@...> wrote:
> > Dear Peter:
> >
> > ----- 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
>
> > [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.
>
> Unless I'm missing something, I would have said that 'will' formed

a

> predictive mood, as in 'They'll have had a shock when they looked
> inside the room.', rather than an intentional mood.
>
> English verb forms seem much easier to explain
> if 'will', 'can', 'may', 'shall', and 'must' are all treated as
> forming synthetic moods. In particular, such a treatment neatly
> explains why we don't have *'will can do'. 'Ought to' also fits

in

> here (at least in Standard English). There is also the
> defective "needn't" (no positive - I'm not sure it is simply a
> negative of "must" distinct from "mustn't".).
>
> Richard.

Does it also neatly explain why Dutch, German and the Scandinavian
languages do?

Torsten