Editor for this issue: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar <aristar
linguistlist.org>
In his interesting posts concerning Ebonics, Ron Anderson writes >Those who read in First Grade give future tense markers, those who >don't read don't give future tense markers, typically. Is it just me--am I being a middle-aged nitpicker--or does anyone elso differ with the notion that English has "future tense markers?" Maybe it's because I have worked with a language or two that have real (surface, morphological) future tense markers, but I tend to find the conflation of time, which is semantic, with tense, which (I believe) is syntactic, a bit off-putting. Or does the fact that some languages, English among them, tend to indicate futurity periphrastically--through the use of certain modal auxiliaries, the use of time adverbials, etc.--matter when we are talking about such matters? Carl MillsMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue