> In the grammar text we are perusing, the concept of modals has raised its head. The words "The nice thing about modern grammarians is that they have reduced the number of TENSES in English to just two, PRESENT and PAST. Notice even WILL (formerly considered to represent the future tense) is really a PRESENT TENSE MODAL expressing present time intent or will…..)"

> languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=897

That's nice!

> The terminology remains variable, but at least since Otto Jespersen a hundred years ago, many grammarians working on English have taken all this to mean that English has only two basic tenses, present and past. (Well, Jespersen called the past tense by the old-fashioned name "preterit" — but as I said, the terminology varies.)

So preterit was coined or at least first used by Otto Jespersen.

A Danish linguist.

:D

> Thus you can say "I regret not being able to leave" but not "I regret not canning leave"; and similarly "I regret not being about to leave", but not "I regret not willing leave". Likewise "I want to be about to leave" works, but "I want to will leave" doesn't.

Though everyone (learner) knows this, it may be interesting to think of verbs that we would use in the place of these modals after a verb such as want to or like to or have to.

- We have to be able/ready to allow people to leave this island soon.

- We want to possibly(?) allow people to leave this building in case Godzilla strikes.

- We want you to maybe consider such an option.

- They want us to firmly intend to have achieved our objectives by this nightfall.

- They want us to have to hold this line.

- They want us to be having to hold this line when Muto (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism) is here.

Though all these are unlikely utterances, especially the later ones (it's easier to just be direct), they're all possible, imho.

> Why are these words called "modals"? In a tradition going back to Aristotle, modal logic deals with ways of qualifying the truth of a judgment. In its modern form, modal logic might deal with the logic of necessity and possibility, or the logic of obligation and permission, or the logic of belief, or the logic of time.

> And since the words like can, may, might, must, should, will, and would are verbal auxiliaries that mostly express modal concepts, it makes sense to call them "modal auxiliaries".

This following part is worth noting:

Past Time			Present Time			Future Time
He will have left already. 	He will be in Paris now. 	He will see her tomorrow.
He may have left already. 	He may be in Paris now. 	He may see her tomorrow.

> And if you want to follow an experienced guide deep into the grammatical woods, take a look at Anoop Sarkar, "The conflict between future tense and modality: The case of will in English", Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 5(2): 91-117, 1998.

> Anoop's conclusion? English will is a present-tense modal.

Also, the three reasons are worth noting: that "modern grammarians" haven't "reduced the number of tenses in English to just two", that the change's motivated by a logical argument based on facts, and that it seems wrong to claim that the present-day meaning of will is "present-time intent" (originally, it mean "to want" or "to wish" or "to choose").

> Geoff Pullum attributes to will (with examples) "a wide range of meanings, ranging over volition, inclination, habituation, tendency, inference, and prediction". -- See here.

Oh, the last paragraph is quite friendly. :-)

> And finally, a text for middle-schoolers shouldn't just appeal to the authority of "modern grammarians", whatever their motivation, especially when it suggests that they've changed their minds about something. It's not hard to give some arguments for the view that English has no future tense, as I've done above. The arguments might be right or wrong, and students should be free to engage them seriously and come to a conclusion.

> This is not because they're better qualified than the experts, but because it's the only way for them to understand the claims.

​

This raises another question: What is English would?