peterkirk at qaya.org
Tue Sep 20 07:57:14 EDT 2005
On 20/09/2005 12:52, Ken Penner wrote:
>>"Would" NEVER indicates future tense and never has done. This is a
>>mother tongue speaker telling you that, with support from
>>mother tongue speakers on this list, as well as from reference books.
>I think this is stated a bit too strongly. "Would" is considered "posterior
>past" by Hans Reichenbach (Elements of Symbolic Logic, 297), the very man
>responsible for the event model constituted by speech time (S), reference
>time (R), and event time (E). Reichenbach's "posterior" is now generally
>called "relative future tense," in which R precedes E.
>"For the posterior past R-E-S the form 'he would do' is used, for instance
>in 'I did not expect that he would win the race'" (297). Reichenbach also
>gives "he was going to" as a substitute for this use of "would" (298).
It may be a "relative future tense", but that is not the same thing as
the future tense which Vadim keeps going on about.
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 19/09/2005
More information about the b-hebrew