I'll keep on adding links to the Potentially Helpful Questions section as I find them. The intent is to have a gallery of good reference Q/A pairs, like the one in Part 5 of StoneyB's canonical post here: ell.stackexchange.com/questions/13255/…

Also currently unsure as to whether I should add a section on Sequence under the Non-Finite Forms section. Any opinions on whether this would be relevant here, or an unnecessary tangent? By "sequence," I'm referring to the rule for determining the non-finite form's tense relative to the main verb.

@gotube The primary intent behind this post was to have a "disambiguation" page that would give an overview of each of the (two?) main models for understanding tense and aspect. In order to avoid confusion from askers getting answers which appear to contradict each other - this would clarify that there are different approaches with different pros and cons. Following the model of the CP about the Perfect (which I have read; it's a truly impressive project by StoneyB :D), I thought it might be helpful to also include a list of good Qs and As for each of the different tenses.

@gotube This isn't intended to overlap with CP#2 at all, except as far as the perfect is a tense (or aspect, depending on your perspective) and so should be included in the tables. It's more of a meta-discussion I guess: it isn't about a tense or aspect so much as about ways of considering tense and aspect

@gotube "Why not continue the pattern we already have and create a separate CP about each individual tense and aspect?" -- I'm not sure if that was meant literally or rhetorically? If you're saying that what I was going for in the rough outline seems too broad or unfocused, then I will attempt to refine it to stick to a narrower scope (as defined in my first comment under yours). If that was an actual suggestion, wow that would be a big project! But, I'll volunteer to start on one (which one?), although I doubt it will compare to the existing one on the Perfect

@gotube I don't intend it to be significantly longer than it is now: more like double (or not even that) and definitely not 10x! Mostly I was hoping someone more technically knowledgeable might help out with the last section. I was also considering adding a section on Sequence of Tenses as it relates to non-finite forms (like the infinitive) having their tense determined by their relation to the main verb's time reference (and also for the subjunctive)

Primarily, if the community agrees that the idea would be helpful, I was just looking for suggestions for improvements to what's there, and was planning on "polishing" the rough draft (for one thing, I'll be fixing that numbering mistake in the superscripts! Also "10 = 12" has to go).

@gotube I'm not clear on your last question? If you mean that I tend to answer questions from non-native speakers, and that I don't have a linguistics background, those are both true. Also, I intend this proposed CP to be mainly a resource for EFL learners. It would probably seem like stating the obvious to anyone who does have significant linguistics knowledge.

@MarcInManhattan That is a good point, but what should get cut? Do you think the list of links is out of place in this kind of post?

@MarcInManhattan #1 - The 6-tense, 3-variant model, which I have described (thoroughly?) in the first section. #2 - This I'm less clear on, but there seems to be a consensus from scholarly sources on a 2-tense system (how many aspects? I'm not sure).

In System 1, non-finite forms also have tense and aspect. In System 2, I believe they would say that they don't.

@gotube I would consider that to be an alternate form of the future tense: how should I label it in the table? "Future Periphrastic," maybe, as I believe that is the term for a multi-part construction. I have also just edited the suggestion to cut all but the core concepts, and eliminated a lot of the examples and explanations.

"Getting into different models opens the floodgates for proponents of any model to insist theirs gets representation" - That could really inflate the post into something unmanageable! Should I only compare/contrast 6 tenses vs. 2, and get rid of any mention of additional systems? I'm not sure though whether it's possible to keep the "disambiguation" concept without mentioning the possibility of having multiple models. Do you have any ideas for how to avoid this issue?

@gotube I'll revise the outline again tomorrow following your suggestions. So, completely eliminate the second section, and expand the first with a discussion of how "going to" works (plus clarify the usage of aspect vs. tense for the progressive)? That will leave the discussion of the 6 tenses, plus 2 aspects, and the emphatic forms, along with the clarification that "12 tenses" comes from conflating tense with aspect (6 * 2 = 12). I'm not sure that this CP will have much value for clarification if it doesn't address the full range of answers that learners' questions might get (contd)

but do you think it would be worth keeping as a reference on the standard system? Or scrap the proposal entirely? Is a reference on exclusively the most common system for classifying tense and aspect really necessary, given that there are probably many online resources that already do so?

I was trying to find some examples of questions which had gotten conflicting answers from different viewpoints to serve as a reference (for the original topic of this proposal), but of course as soon as I started looking for these specifically, I couldn't find any. These discussions ell.stackexchange.com/questions/254104/… and ell.stackexchange.com/questions/152884/… were the closest I could find, and do illustrate that there are some good questions and answers on this site that do

go into the kind of depth you'd expect from EL&U.

@gotube and MarcInManhattan: Edited again

Where does "emphatic aspect" come from?

@Araucaria-Nothereanymore. Oops, if I used that phrase somewhere in my post, that was a mistake. I'm aware that "emphatic" isn't an "aspect," and I tried to make that clear in the explanation above the second table. I meant to only refer to "simple" and "continuous" as "aspects," but I'm not sure how to classify "emphatic" so I went with just calling it a "variant" of a tense. I'll take another look at the post and if I've written "emphatic aspect" anywhere, I'll fix that.

@Araucaria-Nothereanymore. Where in the outline do you see that phrase? I just reread my post and couldn't find it.

Sorry, 'emphatic tense'! What would a google ngram for 'present perfect tense' and 'present emphatic tense' look like? [I've never heard of the latter]

@Araucaria-Nothereanymore. I'll give ngram a try and see what comes up. I thought it was a fairly common term, but may be mistaken. It certainly wouldn't do to include something idiosyncratic in a Canonical Post :D Thanks for pointing that out.

results: books.google.com/ngrams/… books.google.com/ngrams/… books.google.com/ngrams/… It looks like it's actually very uncommon - I'm surprised!

At least one confirmed source does use the term "emphatic tense": "When the verb to do is used as a helping verb and combined with another verb, it forms what is sometimes referred to as the emphatic tense. This tense is used for emphasis, in negative statements, and in questions." - Quote taken from a book called Alpha Teach Yourself Grammar & Style in 24 Hours google.com/books/edition/…

Which was linked from the ngram results. So, I'm not the only one using it, but it seems as if it doesn't really compare with the "big" ones like "present perfect." Should I remove "emphatic" entirely from the post, or consign it to a footnote?

@QuackE.Duck Well, it's really a construction rather than a tense, I think. For example, the same type of stress is used in the same way with any auxiliary verb, for example the modal verbs. I'd remove it, if it were up to me :)

@Araucaria-Nothereanymore. Removed it - that did streamline things. The post flows better without the frequent tangents about emphatic forms getting in the way!

@QuackE.Duck Shall we discuss this in chat?

@Araucaria-Nothereanymore. Sure, if you prefer

In its current form, are there any parts of the post that seem unclear? Not enough examples/explanation? Maybe too much extraneous detail? Or do you consider it close to being ready (not sure what the official "review process" is for a suggested canonical post, or if there is one)

@QuackE.Duck Hi there, it seems well written, but the content itself is a bit unconventional, especially if the title is "tense and aspect". The TEFL received wisdom is that English has two aspects: the progressive and the continuous. (Some people add 'the simple', but that's difficult to justify and also explain)

I will have to look that up and try to find a good, "conventional" source to cite. I hadn't realized before writing this how easy it is to take stuff for granted that might not actually be common practice! Any recommendations (do you have a specific resource in mind)?

@QuackE.Duck Sorry, long day! They are! I meant the perfect and the continuous.

That's odd, it just concatenated two of my comments. Oh, so you mean that "perfect" should be an aspect instead of a tense!

But then, what happens to the 6 main tenses, and where does the number 12 come from?

@QuackE.Duck Yes, exactly so.

@QuackE.Duck The six main tenses was news to me! ;-)

This is why I had originally wanted to do a compare-and-contrast of all the different models for tense and aspect - because no one can agree :D But, another contributor thought this would just confuse learners. --For your latest comment: Did you learn about the 2-tense model instead? I thought that was less common

Re resources, it depends how much time you've got and how canonical you want to go really. The classic for verbs and tenses in EFL might be Michael Lewis's the English Verb. But Scott Thornbury is a very good bet.

Over on ELU I see it discussed all the time, but I'm only familiar with the 6 tenses, and was very surprised to see there were alternatives when I got involved in this community! I will try to find those if they're online and not paywalled.

Thanks for all your help so far in improving this post, and for the references! It will be dinner time here soon so if I don't see your message right away, that's why. Did you see the original version of the suggested CP before the focus changed? I'm just wondering, because the second part (that got cut) might have been more along the lines of what you were thinking of

@QuackE.Duck So I learned all of those constructions as "tenses" apart from the "going to" business. And that will wasn't really a tense, but could be thought of as a 'periphrastic tense', which in my mind, in those days, meant good enough to present as a tense to students. So that would give you the past, present and future, which can all be combined with the perfect, the continuous, or both. (Nice little table, for the back of an EFL book)

@QuackE.Duck You could try the IGE (Internet Grammar of English). It's pretty EFL friendly, and was designed by Bas Arts from the Survey of English Usage at UCL (nothing like his more linguiticky books or grammars).

Here's the link: Internet Grammar of English

Hmm, I'm starting to see why there hasn't been a canonical post in such a long time... The version you learned seems like a great, clear way of presenting it, but it's different from the one I learned and have seen references to on English learners' online resources, and both are different from the model that they seem to prefer over on ELU. I'm not sure if it will be possible to write a "canonical" without at least mentioning that multiple models exist?

@QuackE.Duck I'll have look tomorrow eve. I'm off to bed, and teaching in the morning