Re: [tied] 'Simple' Future

From: Richard Wordingham Message: 19256
Date: 2003-02-26

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com,
"Patrick C. Ryan"
<proto-language@...> wrote:
> 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...".
JRW:
I think 'If he dare go' is too
common for it to be subjunctive.
Certainly it makes no semantic sense
for 'Dare he go?' or 'He daren't
go.' to be subjunctive. 'Dares'
(and 'dareth') first appeared in the
16th century.
I think 'dare' is regular when used
with 'to'.
Richard,
> 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-langu
age/ and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Foru
m/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)