Re: 'Simple' Future

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com,
"Patrick C. Ryan"
<proto-language@...> wrote:

> Dear Peter:
>
>
> ----- 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.
JRW:
I think it is legitimate to
'predict' an as yet unknown past.

> However, I do not agree with Trask

(and others) who attribute
intentionality to all usages of
"will" + infinitive.
JRW:
Nor do I.
PCR:

> 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.

JRW:
You must also note 'will', 'may' and
'must' as defective.
PCR:

> Potential futurity can, however,

easily be: "He will be able to do
it".
JRW:
Unremarkable and irrelevant.

> '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

JRW:
The negative of 'he needs to go' is
'he doesn't need to go'. 'He
needn't go' negates the necessity in
'he must go'. Interestingly,
'needn't' is indifferent to tense; I
am tempted to view it as a second
negative to 'must'.
Richard.

> 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)