Re: [tied] "Simple" Future

Dear Richard:

----- Original Message -----
From: <richard.wordingham@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] "Simple" Future


> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>"
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > --- 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?
>
> Probably works in Western Romance as well - note the limitations on
> the fused infinitive + habe:re.
>
> 'Dare' is transitional in English, as reflected in its complex usage,
> e.g. 'if he dare go' versus 'if he dares to go'.

[PCR]
I presume you have heard of the English subjunctive, which is without -s in the third person singular.

One can also say, using it: "If he dare to go...".
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)