Re: THEORY: tense and aspect nomenclature (was Re: Verb tensesquestion)
|Date:||Friday, December 31, 1999, 5:57|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU]On
> Behalf Of Nik Taylor
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 2:12 AM
> To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
> Subject: Re: THEORY: tense and aspect nomenclature (was Re: Verb
> I've always thought of it this way:
> prospective:future::perfect:past, that is, "I'm going to see" has the
> same connection with "I will see" that "I have seen" has to "I saw".
I'm not so sure about this, but I don't have but gut instinct to back up my
> Another difference with "going to" is that it can occur with past "was
> going to" (in much the same way that perfect can occur with future -
> "will have") or, at least in theory, future, "Will be going to", or
> other cases, I read a book which described future effects on past
> events, saying that "certain events could not have occurred if another
> event *had not been going to occur*", or something to that effect, the
> "had not been going to occur" I'm sure of.
The fact that "going to" can occur with a past or future verb and "will"
cannot seems to be only because "to go" is still considered a normal verb,
whereas "will" has become specialized to the role of an auxiliary verb. So
you can't say "was will," but I would assume that if "will" was still seen
as a normal verb you would be able to say "was willing to." Of course, you
can say that, but it conveys intention rather than futurity. Anyway, to sum
up, I think it was just a a fluke of the development of "going to" and
"will" that made it possible for "going to" to be used with other tenses.
What book was that? Sounds interesting.