Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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 > tensesquestion)
> 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 objection.
> 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.