0
Usenet Posted 20 years ago
Usage
Is there a grammatical term for a group of tenses in English?
I'm trying to explain to someone how tenses work in English. To make things understandable, I put the tenses in a two-level hierarchy. At the first level are the present tenses, the past tenses, and the future tenses. At the next level, each of the "tense groups" has: a simple tense, a perfect tense, a progressive tense, and a perfect progressive tense.
Is there a grammatical term for the first-level grouping in the hierarchy (the "tense groups" that I mentioned in the above)? Also, is there a term for the different "variations" within each first-level grouping?
Is there a grammatical term for the first-level grouping in the hierarchy (the "tense groups" that I mentioned in the above)? Also, is there a term for the different "variations" within each first-level grouping?
Top answer
[nq:1]I'm trying to explain to someone how tenses work in English. To make things understandable, I put the tenses in ... groups" that I mentioned in the above)?
- [nq:1]I'm trying to explain to someone how tenses work in English.
- To make things understandable, I put the tenses in ...
- groups" that I mentioned in the above)?
- [/nq] Strictly speaking your first group are the tenses; linguists talk about perfect and progressive 'aspects' for the second set of variations.
- DC
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
24 Answers
0
[nq:1]I'm trying to explain to someone how tenses work in English. To make things understandable, I put the tenses in ... groups" that I mentioned in the above)? Also, is there a term for the different "variations" within each first-level grouping?[/nq]
Strictly speaking your first group are the tenses; linguists talk about perfect and progressive 'aspects' for the second set of variations.
Strictly speaking your first group are the tenses; linguists talk about perfect and progressive 'aspects' for the second set of variations.
00
[nq:2]I'm trying to explain to someone how tenses work in ... a term for the different "variations" within each first-level grouping?[/nq]
[nq:1]Strictly speaking your first group are the tenses; linguists talk about perfect and progressive 'aspects' for the second set of variations.[/nq]
English doesn't strictly speaking have a future tense: a composite form such as "will go" is more like
[nq:1]Strictly speaking your first group are the tenses; linguists talk about perfect and progressive 'aspects' for the second set of variations.[/nq]
English doesn't strictly speaking have a future tense: a composite form such as "will go" is more like
00
Actually it's a three-level hierarchy. Or at least, there are three qualities that combine to make a tense, which you may choose to present as a hierarchy. It's past, present, or future; perfect or not; simple or progressive. That gives 12 possible combinations, all of which exist. In some of the cases, there is also "emphatic" as a third alternative to simple and progressive.
[nq:2]Strictly s
[nq:2]Strictly s
00
[nq:1]Actually it's a three-level hierarchy. Or at least, there are three qualities that combine to make a tense, which you ... of which exist. In some of the cases, there is also "emphatic" as a third alternative to simple and progressive.[/nq]
I think it's just matter of how you look at it. In my two-level hierarchy, you have all twelve combinations too. Since perfect and progressive are com
I think it's just matter of how you look at it. In my two-level hierarchy, you have all twelve combinations too. Since perfect and progressive are com
00
The three basic tenses (present, past and future) in their simplest form, they are known as the simple tenses. The four major tenses in English are the simple present, simple past, simple future, and present perfect. There are six perfect tenses: the present, past, and future perfect, and three progressive forms (also called the -ing form).
Hope this helps.
Hope this helps.
00
[nq:2]Actually it's a three-level hierarchy. Or at least, there are ... also "emphatic" as a third alternative to simple and progressive.[/nq]
[nq:1]I think it's just matter of how you look at it. In my two-level hierarchy, you have all twelve combinations too. Since perfect and progressive are combinable aspects, I'd find it odd to place them at different levels of a hierarchy.[/nq]
Well,
[nq:1]I think it's just matter of how you look at it. In my two-level hierarchy, you have all twelve combinations too. Since perfect and progressive are combinable aspects, I'd find it odd to place them at different levels of a hierarchy.[/nq]
Well,
00
[nq:1]I'm trying to explain to someone how tenses work in English.[/nq]
I was going to say "decade" then I realised it wasn't the kind of tenses that come before elevenses.
John Dean
Oxford
I was going to say "decade" then I realised it wasn't the kind of tenses that come before elevenses.
John Dean
Oxford
00
[nq:1]The reason that I'm looking for a grammatical term for the "tense groups" is that certain regular patterns can be expressed in terms of the concept.[/nq]
Here is your two-level hierarchy. I found it here: http://www.sabri.org/Grammar/Consider-L2.htm
Verb tenses are divi
Here is your two-level hierarchy. I found it here: http://www.sabri.org/Grammar/Consider-L2.htm
Verb tenses are divi
00
[nq:1]The reason that I'm looking for a grammatical term for the "tense groups" is that certain regular patterns can be expressed in terms of the concept.[/nq]
If you're the first one to think of this, you get to name them.
Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.
If you're the first one to think of this, you get to name them.
Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.
00
[nq:1]I'm trying to explain to someone how tenses work in English. To make things understandable, I put the tenses in ... groups" that I mentioned in the above)? Also, is there a term for the different "variations" within each first-level grouping?[/nq]
All the classifications proposed seem to do justice to the facts. But then, there is no law against playing with as many subdivisions as there
All the classifications proposed seem to do justice to the facts. But then, there is no law against playing with as many subdivisions as there
0
Related Questions