# Future Tense



## Artrella

Hi!
Is this true?    How do Japanese people do to express future?


----------



## suzzzenn

Hi Art, 

I don't know about Japanese, but technically we don't have a future "tense" in English either. That is, if you think of tense as a morphological inflection of a verb. One book I read went so  far as to say that English has only two tenses past and non-past. In Spanish there is ir*é* but in English we have to use a modal, "will go" , the phrase "going to" , or the  present with some type of adverb, "He is going the doctor again next Friday".  

 Saludos, 
Susan


----------



## Outsider

Yes, but English does have a future *compound* tense. Two, in fact: _'will' + infinitive_ and _to be + 'going to' + infinitive_.

Some languages do not have any tense devoted specifically to the future. Notice that in the Spanish subjunctive mood you also use the *present* tense to talk about the future. 

This may sound strange to us, but it makes sense if you notice that many sentences about the future include some additional expression to locate the event in time, for instance adverbial phrases like 'tomorrow', 'next week', 'in the future'.

So if we say 'tomorrow I travel to Paris', or 'next week my grandmother comes to visit us', or 'in the future people have more spare time' we can still make ourselves understood, even though the sentence sounds a bit stiff to us.

There you go, Artrella: the future tense is redundant!


----------



## Artrella

Well, now that I've read your replies... I remember that my English Grammar teacher said "the future tense does not exist", we only have past and present.  But I don't remember why he said that!   

I've also read that Danes haven't got future tense either!  
And German has not got "continuous tenses"...


----------



## Artrella

Outsider said:
			
		

> This may sound strange to us, but it makes sense if you notice that many sentences about the future include some additional expression to locate the event in time, for instance adverbial phrases like 'tomorrow', 'next week', 'in the future'.
> 
> There you go, Artrella: the future tense is redundant!





Well, maybe you are right... for instance in Buenos Aires we say "mañana voy a ir a la casa de mi hermana".... so we use "voy" which is present... We don't use "mañana iré a la casa de mi hermana".... I wonder why do we do this?


----------



## Outsider

_Voy_ by itself is a present, but _voy a ir_ is a compound future, IMHO.


----------



## Artrella

Outsider said:
			
		

> _Voy_ by itself is a present, but _voy a ir_ is a compound future, IMHO.




Y... si digo..."mañana voy a lo de mi hermana"???   


Acá pongo algo de lo que pude leer del idioma danés:



> El tiempo futuro, como tal, no existe. El tiempo presente con alguna indicación de futuro sirve como sustituto: "jeg kommer i morgen", "vendré mañana". Igualmente se pueden usar algunos verbos auxiliares:
> 
> ville - jeg vil komme (vendré) skulle - jeg skal komme (vendré)


----------



## Outsider

Artrella said:
			
		

> Y... si digo..."mañana voy a lo de mi hermana"???


I think you're making a joke, but I don't get it...


----------



## Artrella

Outsider said:
			
		

> I think you're making a joke, but I don't get it...




Me neither!  I don't think that is a joke Outsider... but try this...

"¿Compraste el libro?"
"No, lo compro mañana"


----------



## JJchang

Let me reply to the original post, it's understandable that they don't have distinction between the future tense and the present tense. I don't think it's really a lack of future tense, maybe it's more about there's no need to have a present tense especially when there's an equivalent tense to the -ing form. 
It's like when do we really use "I eat" and "I drink" to replace "I'm eating" and "I'm drinking" in the conversation?


----------



## Outsider

Artrella said:
			
		

> "¿Compraste el libro?"
> "No, lo compro mañana"


Yes, the present tense can be used with a value of future, but the point is that Spanish and other Romance languages have a tense specifically for the future. _'Lo compraré mañana'_ can't be anything but a future.



			
				JJchang said:
			
		

> It's like when do we really use "I eat" and "I drink" to replace "I'm eating" and "I'm drinking" in the conversation?


That's a difference of aspect, not tense. It has to do with the manner in which the action occurs, not the time at which it happens.


----------



## Artrella

Outsider said:
			
		

> Yes, the present tense can be used with a value of future, but the point is that Spanish and other Romance languages have a tense specifically for the future. _'Lo compraré mañana'_ can't be anything but a future.
> 
> 
> That's a difference of aspect, not tense. It has to do with the manner in which the action occurs, not the time at which it happens.




Sí, you are right Outsider!  
Now, back to German and JJChang examples... why do you think they don't use the continuous tenses?  There is a word in German "Aktionsart" which refers to telic/atelic actions.  If they don't have continuous tenses does it mean they don't consider atelic actions in the present tense?


----------



## Outsider

Hmm, now you're way over my head, Artrella. I can't speak German.   
How is it in Japanese? Does it distinguish between simple and continuous tenses?


----------



## Edwin

Outsider said:
			
		

> Hmm, now you're way over my head, Artrella. I can't speak German.
> How is it in Japanese? Does it distinguish between simple and continuous tenses?



My memory of Japanese is poor. But as I recall (using the polite forms)

I am eating  = watashi wa  tabete imasu
I was eating = watashi wa tabete imashita
I eat  =          watashi wa tabemasu
I ate =           watashi wa tabemashita
I will probably eat = watashi wa tabemashoo

Maybe someone with better knowledge can give us a complete conjugation of some common Japanese verb.


----------



## JJchang

outsider, I was talking about the present time. It has to do with the manner, but also with the time. If we are talking about English infinitive and gerund, then it's a totally different matter.

There is an ing form in Japanese, so they can show the present continuation.


----------



## Artrella

Outsider said:
			
		

> Hmm, now you're way over my head, Artrella. I can't speak German.
> How is it in Japanese? Does it distinguish between simple and continuous tenses?



The tenses in Japanese are present and past (the former used for actions in the future as well).

*Present Tense * 

Japanese verb forms have two main tenses, the present and the past. There is no future tense. The present tense is used for future and habitual action as well. The informal form of the present tense is the same as the dictionary form. The ~ masu form is used in formal situations. 

*Past Tense * 
The past tense is used to express actions completed in the past (I saw, I bought etc.) and present perfect tense (I have read, I have done etc.). 

*Present Negative * 
To make sentence negative, verb endings are changed into negative forms (The ~ nai Form).

The *~ te * form is a useful form of the Japanese verb. It does not indicate tense by itself, however it combines with other verb forms to create other tenses. It has many other uses as well. The present progressive: the ~ te form + iru or imasu (formal)

*Source* 


I will try to find some material about "aktionsart".  _Telicity _ is something rather complicated for me to understand, that's why I'm interested in verbs from different languages, to see how they manage to describe an event.


In connection to German, what I know so far is that in present tense, in order to make it "continuous" they add the adverb "gerade", so >>

Ich trinke eine Tasse Kaffee.  >>> I drink a cup of coffee
Ich trinke gerade eine Tasse Kaffee  >>>  I am drinking a cup of coffee.

Maybe Whodunit or Ralf could help me to understand this construction using "gerade" (I'm not sure about the place of "gerade" in the sentence)


----------



## Edwin

Artrella said:
			
		

> The tenses in Japanese are present and past (the latter former used for actions in the future as well).


  Art, allow me to stand up for Japanese.   They have more than just present and past. As suggested in the article you posted they also have present continuous and past continuous tenses using the "te"  forms. For example,

I am speaking = watashi wa hanashite imasu
I was speaking = watashi wa hanashite imashita


I notice that some call the Japanese ''present" tense the ''present/future'' tense or the ''non-past'' tense.


----------



## Lin

Hi !  We do have future tense.  It is like Spanish words "ir".  We have "desho" "daro".  

It is interesting to see all the comments.
I am japanese.  I can explain you either in English or Spanish if you have any questions, I will help you.


----------



## Edwin

Lin said:
			
		

> Hi !  We do have future tense.  It is like Spanish words "ir".  We have "desho" "daro".
> 
> It is interesting to see all the comments.
> I am japanese.  I can explain you either in English or Spanish if you have any questions, I will help you.



Lin san, kore wa ii desu ka:

I will definitely go see the movie tomorrow = Ashita tashika ni eiga e itte mimasu 
I may go see the movie tomorrow = Ashita eiga e itte miru deshoo. 

[Mukashi, mukashi nihongo o benkyo shimashita  Shikashi hotondo minna wasuremashita] 

Edwin


----------



## SpiceMan

It's funny that you're surprised on how people can manage without future tense, while in Argentina we hardly use future tense and express everything in present tense with an adverb, just like in Japanese.


----------



## Aoyama

There is a future tense in japanese (desho and daro ending as Lin san rightly said) with the nuance that this "future" includes a possibility (may, might, may be) which is slightly different than the future in european languages. That has to do with the notion of "time" (past, future) in japanese grammar,what I would call "historicity" which is not as precise as in french or english (or spanish etc, but french is a better example with "multipasts" and "multifutures"). As for the movie business :
Ashita tashikani eigawo mini iku
 Ashita eigawo mini iku desho
                gambatte ne (*:*)


----------



## toscairn

I ask this out of curiosity;

(1)Could you elaborate a little bit on your "historicity?"

(2) And also, what do you mean by "multifutures/multipasts" in Spanish and French? Does it mean that Frence has a few means (e.g. Je vais prendre, Je prendré) to express future tense and past tense? Just to make sure that what you think is what I'm thinking. Hope it's the case here.

(3) Ashita eigawo mini iku desho (*sic*)

Please rethink if this is really an appropriate example. Would you say it when talking with your friends? I'd say this is not natural Japanese. A weather forcaster will say,

Ashita hareru desho. 

Please note the difference in the subject of "desho."


----------



## SpiceMan

There's no tense in darou/deshou, etc...

In fact I can say:
"_kinou nanimo kuwanakatta yarou_"
and it's *past* *tense*.

ashita eiga wo mi ni iku < iku has *no tense*. It can either be an action in the present, past or future depending on the rest of the context. The only thing you can know for sure is that is an affirmation (肯定). That's the only information provided by the verb.

matsui san wa yoku yomu < yomu is not present tense, nor past, nor future. It's just describing something that happens usually, with the help of the adverb. Usually expressed with present tense in western languages. That doesn't mean that it is also present tense in Japanese.

_yomu koto ga dekinakatta_ < yomu has no tense. only to read + affirmative. The sentence is in past tense. This is  a function usually performed by the verbs in infinitive in western languages.

_hon wo kashitekuretara yomu yo_ < yomu has no tense. It's only affirmative. The tense is implied. This would be present tense in western languages, or future in those languages that do feature a future tense inflection in its verbs.

Everything comes from the rest of the phrase, not the verb. The verb has no time, nor gender, nor number, nor nothing. The only "extra info" that carries by itself besides the action described by the verb is that it's affirmative.

Of course, that is not to say that it isn't used as both present and future tense. But that info is not IN the verb, as an inflection, or similar. Other languages do have other types of information "built-in" the word, such as gender, number, tense, etc. Japanese verbs have other kind of information: affirmation/negation, past-tense, the so-called "volitional" (ikou, miyou, darou), etc... but not future tense.


----------



## se16teddy

Outsider said:
			
		

> Yes, but English does have a future *compound* tense. Two, in fact: _'will' + infinitive_ and _to be + 'going to' + infinitive_.
> 
> Only two?  How about 'I shall go', 'I may go', or 'I can go', all of which tend to imply futurity?


----------



## Flaminius

I understand Japanese verbs are contrasted between the unmarked form (-ru) and the perfective aspect (-ta).

夕飯を食べた後に、音楽を聴こうと思います。

Yūhan-o tabe*ta* ato-ni ongaku-o kikōto omoimasu.

I intend to listen to music after I "ate" dinner.

In the sentence above, _-ta_ is used to signify perfective aspect since eating dinner has not yet taken place.  Its use as past tense seems to me a secondary development.

Flam


----------



## blank

Hi everyone,

I read that "watashi wa ima tabemasen" is "I'm not going to eat now" in one place and in other time I read it means "I'm not eating now". How do I differentiate between them in Japanese?

and another one question:

xxx


----------



## SpiceMan

For actions taking place in the present you would use the continuous, just like in english. You wouldn't say "I have dinner" while having dinner, you would say "I'm having dinner". You would use present tense for habits and such, just like in English: mainichi ringo wo tabemasu. I eat an apple everyday.
or ringo wo yoku tabemasu. I eat apples often.

Ima tabeteimasen < I'm not eating now. (continuous)
Ima tabemasen < I won't eat now (since Japanese lacks future tense, the present tense fullfils that function)

So, you usually get the meaning by the adverb.

Ashita ramen wo tabemasu. I will eat ramen tomorrow.
asa natto wo tabemasen. I don't eat natto in the morning (ie: for breakfast).
maishuu pizza wo tabemasu. I eat pizza everyweek.
tamani takoyaki wo tabemasu. I eat takoyaki now and then.

I don't think it can mean "I'm not eating now" since is not continuous.


----------



## blank

SpiceMan said:


> For actions taking place in the present you would use the continuous, just like in english. You wouldn't say "I have dinner" while having dinner, you would say "I'm having dinner". You would use present tense for habits and such, just like in English: mainichi ringo wo tabemasu. I eat an apple everyday.
> or ringo wo yoku tabemasu. I eat apples often.
> 
> Ima tabeteimasen < I'm not eating now. (continuous)
> Ima tabemasen < I won't eat now (since Japanese lacks future tense, the present tense fullfils that function)
> 
> So, you usually get the meaning by the adverb.
> 
> Ashita ramen wo tabemasu. I will eat ramen tomorrow.
> asa natto wo tabemasen. I don't eat natto in the morning (ie: for breakfast).
> maishuu pizza wo tabemasu. I eat pizza everyweek.
> tamani takoyaki wo tabemasu. I eat takoyaki now and then.
> 
> I don't think it can mean "I'm not eating now" since is not continuous.


 
thank you for the answer! 
and do you know why my second quesion was deleted?


----------



## Flaminius

Hallo Blank,

ברוך הבא ל-WR Forums.  ^ ^

Your other question has not been deleted but moved here (and getting answers there    ).  Please open one thread for one question.

Post early, post often.
Flaminius


----------



## blank

Flaminius said:


> Hallo Blank,
> 
> ברוך הבא ל-WR Forums. ^ ^
> 
> Your other question has not been deleted but moved here (and getting answers there  ). Please open one thread for one question.
> 
> Post early, post often.
> Flaminius


 
Thank you for the answer!
I didn't know that I should open new thread for each question.
sorry for the mistake [=


----------



## blank

Flaminius said:


> Hallo Blank,
> 
> ברוך הבא ל-WR Forums. ^ ^


 
and by the way I'm female so you should write "ברוכה הבאה" (brucha habaa) ^ ^
and thanks for the welcome ^ ^


----------



## Flaminius

Flam stands corrected.


ברוכה הבאה ל-WR Forums.


----------



## blank

Flaminius said:


> Flam stands corrected.
> 
> 
> ברוכה הבאה ל-WR Forums.


 
your are so nice [=
thanks again


----------



## akina

According to my Japanese book, it says there is no future tence in Japanese like in English, so would the phrase, 
Haha ni hon o agemasu be the same for both future and present?


----------



## CiegoEnamorado

As far as I am aware, yes. Japanese is more concerned with completion/incompletion of an action versus when it is/isn't, was/wasn't, etc. completed.


----------



## ThomasK

I am wondering: how do Japanese refer to the future ? 

I mean: I was told that Japanese does not have a future tense. I suppose though that it has expressions (if not verb forms) 
- to predict things ('It will work in 2015'), even if it were a present
- to refer to projects ('I am going to...'). 

Or do they have a very peculiar 'relationship' with the future ? 

I am sorry, but I do not know Japanese. But I am interested in how language systems work, that's why I ask.


----------



## lilhelper

In Japanese, the present and future tense are the same.
2015年に、私は動作します


----------



## ThomasK

So that means that you must refer to the future by adding adjuncts, I guess. 

How do you then distinguish between 'I think he will be ill' and '... he is ill'? By adding an adjunct or in some other way ? 

How about going to then ? Do you have a verb for that or only a paraphrase ?


----------



## lilhelper

Yes, Japanese seems to be funny like that.
My japanese skills are very limited.
So I will try!
彼が病気になると思っています。
Kare ga byouki ni Naru to omotteimasu。
I think he will be sick.

彼は病気になります。
kare ha byouki ni narimasu.
He will be sick, or he will be ill.


----------



## ThomasK

Good Lord, this is Chinese, excuse me, Japanese to me ! What are you trying to prove, if I may ask ?


----------



## lilhelper

ThomasK said:


> Good Lord, this is Chinese, excuse me, Japanese to me ! What are you trying to prove, if I may ask ?


I am simply trying to answer the questions that you have asked.
Ｅｘｃｕｓｅ　ｍｅ，Ｉ　ｄｉｄｎｔ　ｒｅａｄ　ａｌｌ　ｏｆ　ｔｈａｔ　ｙｏｕ　ｔｙｐｅｄ．


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks, but could you for example write translations of each word below the words in Japanese ? Then it becomes very meaningful to me !



> 彼が病気になると思っています。
> Ｋａｒｅ　ｇａ　ｂｙｏｕｋｉ　ｎｉ　Ｎａｒｕ　ｔｏ　ｏｍｏｔｔｅｉｍａｓｕ


----------



## lilhelper

ThomasK said:


> Thanks, but could you for example write translations of each word below the words in Japanese ? Then it becomes very meaningful to me !


See above please.


----------



## ThomasK

lilhelper said:


> 彼は病気になります。
> kare ha byouki ni narimasu.
> He will be sick, or he will be ill.


 
I am sorry, Lilhelper, seem to have missed out on something. But I do not understand: this sentence is translated as a future (will be), whereas there is no future, so we said. 

Can it also mean 'He _*is*_ sick/ ill' ? Or how do you distinguish between the two ? (Thanks !)


----------



## lilhelper

ThomasK said:


> I am sorry, Lilhelper, seem to have missed out on something. But I do not understand: this sentence is translated as a future (will be), whereas there is no future, so we said.
> 
> Can it also mean 'He _*is*_ sick/ ill' ? Or how do you distinguish between the two ? (Thanks !)


Do you remember that present and future tense are the same?, I have simply translated what you asked.


----------



## lilhelper

ThomasK said:


> So that means that you must refer to the future by adding adjuncts, I guess.
> 
> How do you then distinguish between 'I think he will be ill' and '... he is ill'? By adding an adjunct or in some other way ?
> 
> How about going to then ? Do you have a verb for that or only a paraphrase ?


----------



## lrosa

First of all, "He will be ill" seems an unlikely sentence...

I'd translate "He is ill" as kare-wa byouki-ni natte imasu - He is in the state of having become ill. (I could be wrong)

"I think he will become ill/He will probably become ill" - kare-wa byouki-ni naru deshou

"deshou" indicates probability and is often used to talk about future events which are uncertain.


----------



## Starfrown

Firstly, I think a bad example has been chosen. Let's try a different verb for the sake of simplicity.

毎日映画を見る。
_Mainichi eiga wo miru._
"I watch movies every day."

明日映画を見る。
_Ashita eiga wo miru._
"I'm going to watch movies tomorrow."

The verb form _miru_ is the same in both cases. It may seem as though some misunderstandings could arise, but in reality, there is virtually never a problem. Typically, either the context or adverbial phrases make it clear whether a form should be interpreted as present or future.

Indeed, you may not even realize how often we English speakers use present forms to refer to future actions. Consider this:

"When do you leave for Rome?"
"I leave next week."
----
In fact, some people argue that the Japanese language does not truly make distinctions based on tense at all, but rather solely on aspect. That is, the form _miru_ designates an action that has not reached completion, whether future or present, while the form _mita_ indicates an action that has been completed, and thus may be translated with the plain past and sometimes also the present perfect.

(There is another very important verb form _~te iru_ which has progressive and resultative readings. In many cases, English present verbs are rendered into Japanese through that construction.)


----------



## ThomasK

Could Edwin explain how Japanese this definite aspect (aspect) in particular ? Is it by adding an adjunct like definitely ? 

For me there is still a question that remains unanswered: how do you express intention? By adding something like 'I am going to' or something the like, or an adjunct maybe ?


----------



## Starfrown

ThomasK said:


> Could Edwin explain how Japanese this definite aspect (aspect) in particular ? Is it by adding an adjunct like definitely ?
> 
> For me there is still a question that remains unanswered: how do you express intention? By adding something like 'I am going to' or something the like, or an adjunct maybe ?


Certain adverbs, such as きっと (_kitto_), may be used with non-past forms to indicate that something will definitely be done.

To indicate intention, often the noun _tsumori_ is used:

明日映画を見るつもりだ。
_Ashita eiga wo miru tsumori da._

It is very similar to the following in English:

"It is my intention to watch a movie tomorrow."

The non-past form _miru_ is used before _tsumori _because anything that one intends to do is necessarily of incomplete aspect.


----------



## ThomasK

Perfect information, thanks. 

But 'He will be ill when he drinks too much', seems quite OK to me (as opposed to the example mentioned in #57-58). I consider it a prediction based on an observation. But then of course there is no intention meant on the part of the speaker, nor on the subject's. How does Japanese express that ? By using present and adding some if-adjunct ? 

I tend to conclude that there might not be a real future tense, but  references to the future are made in other ways. One could wonder though why there is no separate tense: could there be some 'logic' , some reason, behind it? I realize that the latter is not a strictly linguistic question, but it has some linguistic relevance, I think. Does the absence restrict certain possibilities for example ? (This is something translators face from time to time: that is hardly impossible to fully render some phrase) Could anyone perhaps provide us with a 'future reference( that can hardly be translated into English, perhaps ?


----------



## lrosa

ThomasK said:


> But 'He will be ill when he drinks too much', seems quite OK to me (as opposed to the example mentioned in #57-58). I consider it a prediction based on an observation. But then of course there is no intention meant on the part of the speaker, nor on the subject's. How does Japanese express that ? By using present and adding some if-adjunct ?



"He will become ill if he drinks too much" - kare-wa nomi-sugitara byouki-ni naru deshou ne

nomi-sugiru = drink too much
-tara indicates "if/when"

This English sentence could be translated into Japanese in different ways, depending on the context, but this translation means: "If he drinks too much, it's probable that he will become ill, isn't it?"

I think that this is distinguished from "He becomes ill when he drinks too much" (habitual tense) by the word "deshou", which indicates uncertainty about what is necessarily an uncertain future. In the same way, English is far more likely to use "if" than "when" in the future sentence, in acknowledgement of the uncertainty of the future. 



ThomasK said:


> I tend to conclude that there might not be a real future tense, but references to the future are made in other ways. One could wonder though why there is no separate tense: could there be some 'logic' , some reason, behind it? I realize that the latter is not a strictly linguistic question, but it has some linguistic relevance, I think. Does the absence restrict certain possibilities for example ? (This is something translators face from time to time: that is hardly impossible to fully render some phrase) Could anyone perhaps provide us with a 'future reference( that can hardly be translated into English, perhaps ?



Your conclusion is correct. But English is just as bizarre with regard to the future, when you think about how rarely we use the future tense to refer to future events. We say "I am going to France this summer", using the *present* continuous tense, to refer to what is in the future. 

I don't believe that the lack of a future tense limits the language's capabilities. If the issue is the lack of distinction between present and future, Japanese has a present continuous form to take care of this. As such, the "non-past" tense generally indicates either habitual or future actions, and when you have a given sentence within a context, it's usually quite easy to tell which of the two is meant.


----------



## Starfrown

lrosa said:


> Your conclusion is correct. But English is just as bizarre with regard to the future, when you think about how rarely we use the future tense to refer to future events. We say "I am going to France this summer", using the *present* continuous tense, to refer to what is in the future.
> 
> I don't believe that the lack of a future tense limits the language's capabilities.


In fact, English also lacks a true future tense.  The modals "will" and "shall" only strongly suggest futurity.


----------



## ThomasK

I am not so sure if the 'shall' future is not a real future. I do believe that will might have been modal at first (as to want), but zullen/ shall seems like a pure future to me. The analytical forms are just variants, I think, of the synthetical forms (future marked by endings). But I am not a (full-time) linguist. 

BTW : when is something a 'true future' ???


----------



## Starfrown

ThomasK said:


> I am not so sure if the 'shall' future is not a real future. I do believe that will might have been modal at first (as to want), but zullen/ shall seems like a pure future to me. The analytical forms are just variants, I think, of the synthetical forms (future marked by endings). But I am not a (full-time) linguist.
> 
> BTW : when is something a 'true future' ???


I probably shouldn't even have brought it up since this is more properly a topic for the EO forum--or for that matter, a linguistics forum. I happen to be on the side of those who believe English has no future tense, but that really is not pertinent. My main point was that the situation in English with "will"/"shall" may not be as clear-cut as you think. In many ways, dealing with the variety of possible interpretations of those ostensibly simple words may in fact be at least as challenging as dealing with the Japanese non-past form.

Read this if you dare.

If you wish to discuss it further, you should open a thread in the EO forum and then be sure to stand at a safe distance--I guarantee you'll have the English speakers at each other's throats in no time.


----------



## José_A

Hello, all:
I have came with this idea that it's kind of difficult to express future in japanese, do I always need to give an idea of the future time? for example do I always need to say "tomorrow" or "within an hour" so the other person understands that I'm talking in future?
I.e. this: 学校に行きますか could mean
1) Do you go to school?
2) Will you go to school?
Am I right?
Please guide me here!
Thanks!!


----------



## Flaminius

Hi,

I have merged your post to an existing thread discussing the same topic.  Previous contributions are really helpful so I try to be brief.  Other threads with tag tense/aspect are also important.

The verb いく is usually understood in the future sense.  I understand 学校に行きますか as a reference to the future: Will you go to school?

The other English sentence is an inquiry about the present habit, which in Japanese is expressed by ている, as in:
学校に行っていますか?


----------



## José_A

Yes, I found it myself, but it didn't clarified my doubts very well. But thanks to you now I have a clear picture.
Thank you!!


----------



## ThomasK

Starfrown said:


> I happen to be on the side of those who believe English has no future tense, but that really is not pertinent. My main point was that the situation in English with "will"/"shall" may not be as clear-cut as you think. Read this if you dare.
> 
> If you wish to discuss it further, you should open a thread in the EO forum and then be sure to stand at a safe distance--I guarantee you'll have the English speakers at each other's throats in no time.


 
I had a quick look and found it interesting. Now I'd need more time though, but in fact the whole concept of modality (especially as expressed by means of modal auxiliaries) seems so interesting, but er... Time ?


----------

