From: Patrick C. Ryan
Message: 19232
Date: 2003-02-25
----- Original Message -----
From: <richard.wordingham@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] "Simple" Future
> --- 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.
[PCR]
I am not very sanguine about your choice of example which, after all, refers to the past.
In your example, the implication seems rather interpretative (or speculative) rather than predictive.
However, I do not agree with Trask (and others) who attribute intentionality to all usages of "will" + infinitive. In the first person, we can reliably (even if deceitfully) report intentionality. But for the remaining persons, intention is a guess on the part of the speaker.
For most English speakers, a sentence like: "He will eat dinner at 5", does not convey intention. Intention would be expressed by: "He wants to eat dinner at 5."
> 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'.
[PCR]
"can", of course, is defective. Potential futurity can, however, easily be: "He will be able to do it".
'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".).
[PCR]
My interpretation of "needn't" is circumstantial necessity. Why do you say "no positive"? Is tere not: "He needs 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)