Normally I just skim Language Log because I don't like the writing style - it comes across to me as somewhat preachy and arrogant.
Makri wrote:That's why I said "to the extent that future is actually a tense". This article argues (rather unconvincingly) that it's not a tense at all.
Iulus Cofield wrote:In either case "do" is inarguably conjugated as present.
Makri wrote:The point that in English, the future is not a tense in a relevant sense, while it is in other languages.
Makri wrote:My point is that it's by far not been established that there is one meaning that the synthetic futures have which the English will-construction lacks. In order to do this, one has to give some alternative semantics for will that produces this future-like meaning and in addition give an argument why the synthetic forms shouldn't have it.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests