# Languages without the future tense



## Eroi Del Mare

Hi,i am sorry if someone has misinterpreted the title but on my own  language/dialect there is not the future ,usually we build the future  using the present simple instead of the future or using a construction  with the verb to have (the verb to have has always the meaning of "to  must",obviously in the present) + the other verb in the infinitive form.

Ex:
This evening I [will] go to the theatre.
This evening I must [will] go to the theatre .

I heard that the semitic languages have this characteristic,but i can t confirm.

Excluding other  Italian languages ​​/ dialects (like Sicilian and / or  Calabrian),there is,somewhere,a language without the  future ?

Thanks


----------



## francisgranada

Eroi Del Mare said:


> Hi,i am sorry if someone has misinterpreted the title but on my own language/dialect there is not the future ,usually we build the future using the present simple instead of the future or using a construction with the verb to have (the verb to have has always the meaning of "to must",obviously in the present) + the other verb in the infinitive form.
> 
> Ex:
> This evening I [will] go to the theatre.
> This evening I must [will] go to the theatre .....


 
Could you tell us, please, which is your dialect and give some examples in your language/dialect ?


----------



## bibax

I think nearly all IE European languages (except perhaps Baltic) lost their original simple future and replaced it by a construction with an auxiliary (modal) verb originally meaning something else + the infinitive:

I am going + inf. ...
I want ...
I intend ...
I have ...
I shall ...
I will ...
etc.

For example, *we shall sing* in Latin is *cantabimus*, but in most Romance languages something like *cantaremos* from Vulgar Latin *cantar habemus*.

Or are you searching for a language without any kind of the future tense forms?

There are certainly languages that use only simple present with a temporal adverbial determinant like tomorrow, next month, etc.


----------



## francisgranada

I think there are many languages "without future" , even if we do not notice (or analyze) it spontaneousely:

Spanish/Italian (and other Romance):
dormirá (from _dormir ha)_ = he/she has to sleep (litterally: "to sleep has")

English:
I shall sleep = (original meaning) I must sleep 
you will sleep = (original meaning) you want to sleep

German:
Ich werde schlafen (_werden_ means _to become_)

Russian (and other Slavic): 
budet spať (_budet_ - the original sense is something like _he/she/it becomes_)
(in some southern Slavic languages the verb _to want/will_ is used as the auxiliary verb)

Hungarian:
aludni fog = (original meaning) he/she takes to sleep (litterally: "to sleep takes")
(in the old Hungarian there was a verbal formant -_nd_- for the future, but it's no more used)


----------



## Eroi Del Mare

Thanks everyone, very helpful!


----------



## qwerta

francisgranada said:


> I think there are many languages "without future" , even if we do not notice (or analyze) it spontaneousely:
> 
> *Spanish/Italian (and other Romance):
> dormirá (from dormir ha) = he/she has to sleep (litterally: "to sleep has")
> *
> English:
> I shall sleep = (original meaning) I must sleep
> you will sleep = (original meaning) you want to sleep
> 
> German:
> Ich werde schlafen (_werden_ means _to become_)
> 
> Russian (and other Slavic):
> budet spať (_budet_ - the original sense is something like _he/she/it becomes_)
> (in some southern Slavic languages the verb _to want/will_ is used as the auxiliary verb)
> 
> Hungarian:
> aludni fog = (original meaning) he/she takes to sleep (litterally: "to sleep takes")
> (though in the old Hungarian there was a verbal formant -_nd_- for the future, but it's no more used)



I've never notice that, but yes!

In Portuguese: eu dormirei (dormir hei) / tu dormirás (dormir hás)
 / ele dormirá (dormir há) / nós dormiremos (dormir hemos --> _hemos_ is not used anymore in daily routine Portuguese - we use 'havemos' , but it's still used in some grammars; however, in spanish it's still _hemos_) / vós dormireis (dormir heis --> _heis_ is in the same situation as _hemos_ ) / eles dormirão (dormir hão)


----------



## olaszinho

I've never notice that, but yes!

A Portuguese should have noticed that better than any other romance language speaker!
You still insert personal pronouns between the verb stem and its endings in the future and conditional tenses: ex. dar-to-ei; falar-lhe-emos; pagar-te-ei, etc.


----------



## francisgranada

bibax said:


> I am going + inf ...


 
This construction, though with "local" differences in the exact meaning, works in many (or most) languages with a "future sense" (even if not in function of the "official" future)

_va a dormir, he is going to sleep, megy aludni, jde spát ..._



> ... in Latin is *cantabimus*...


The Latin future is not of indoeuropean origin, and it's supposed (as far as I know) that it comes from other older verbal tenses/modes (optative/subjuctive/desiderative ...). 

I have a _linguistico-philosophical  _feeling, that originally no "genuine" gramatical future tense existed in the indoeuropean (and perhaps neither in other) languages ... simply because the future _does not exist._ We can _"want, will, wish, decide, intend, have etc..."_ but not _describe_ the future. 

At this point I would rather change the question:

*How do you express the grammatical future in your language?*
(using special suffixes/prefixes/infixes/auxiliary verbs/other verbal constructions ...)


----------



## francisgranada

Szia Olaszinho, I'm glad to see you...

Don't you know the Catalan and the Sardinian future tenses?


----------



## olaszinho

Szia Francis Hogy vagy?
I just know the Catalan future tense and it is very similar to the Spanish one, at least the standard one.....


----------



## qwerta

olaszinho said:


> I've never notice that, but yes!
> 
> A Portuguese should have noticed that better than any other romance language speaker!
> You still insert personal pronouns between the verb stem and its endings in the future and conditional tenses: ex. dar-to-ei; falar-lhe-emos; pagar-te-ei, etc.



Yes, but I don't _think about it_, I just say it /write it. It's like verb's terminations, people only notice then (at least, _I_'ve only noticed them) when they start learning a foreign language (apart from english).

Ask me the future verbs' terminations in french and I'll say you right away it's -ai, -as, -a, -ons, -ez, -ont (which, now that I see, also match the verb 'avoir'). If you ask a french person the same, he'll have to think about it. But ask both of us a verb in future (in french) and he'll be way faster than me...


----------



## francisgranada

qwerta said:


> Yes, but I don't _think about it_, I just say it /write it. It's like verb's terminations, people only notice then (at least, _I_'ve only noticed them) when they start learning a foreign language (apart from english).
> 
> Ask me the future verbs' terminations in french and I'll say you right away it's -ai, -as, -a, -ons, -ez, -ont (which, now that I see, also match the verb 'avoir'). If you ask a french person the same, he'll have to think about it. But ask both of us a verb in future (in french) and he'll be way faster than me...


 
It's perfectly normal that one doesn't think about it ... I think, Olaszinho only wanted to say, that in case of the portuguese, the origin of the future is even more evident than in other romance languages. If so, I do agree.

But, I have not understood what you mean when you say that "... he'll be way faster than me"?


----------



## qwerta

francisgranada said:


> It's perfectly normal that one doesn't think about it ... I think, Olaszinho only wanted to say, that in case of the portuguese, the origin of the future is even more evident than in other romance languages. If so, I do agree.
> 
> But, I have not understood what you mean when you say that "... he'll be way faster than me"?



Ask myself and a french to conjugate a random french verb in french. He'll probably do it instantaneously - I'll have to think in the stem of the verb, the correct ending... This goes better as you learn the language, but I'm always going to be slower than a native speaker in that kind of stuff.


----------



## francisgranada

qwerta said:


> Ask myself and a french to conjugate a random french verb in french. He'll probably do it instantaneously - I'll have to think in the stem of the verb, the correct ending... This goes better as you learn the language, but I'm always going to be slower than a native speaker in that kind of stuff.


 
Ok, thanks.


----------



## olaszinho

francisgranada said:


> It's perfectly normal that one doesn't think about it ... I think, Olaszinho only wanted to say, that in case of the portuguese, the origin of the future is even more evident than in other romance languages. If so, I do agree.
> 
> But, I have not understood what you mean when you say that "... he'll be way faster than me"?


----------



## Selyd

francisgranada said:


> Russian (and other Slavic):
> budet spať (_budet_ - the original sense is something like _he/she/it becomes_)
> (in some southern Slavic languages the verb _to want/will_ is used as the auxiliary verb)


Ukrainian:
Буде спати - /bude spaty/
Спатиме - /spatyme/


----------



## sakvaka

*Finnish* doesn't have a future tense. The present replaces it. 

_Hän sanoo sinulle [varmasti] tuosta.
Suuri tuho koittaa kaikkia maailman kansoja [tämän vuosituhannen aikana]. 

_But occasionally we may use a range of 'alternative expressions'.

_Hän tulee sanomaan sinulle tuosta._ (come + 3rd infinitive illative)
_Suuri tuho on koittava kaikkia maailman kansoja. _(to be + present participle)


----------



## olaszinho

Hi again.
I'd like to add something about the future tense.  In most romance languages (Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan) verbs are undoubtedly more complex than in other languages from a morphological point of view. For instance both the future tense and the conditional possess synthetic forms again,  unlike English, German, Hungarian and so on. Nowadays, the verb stem and the endings are completely blended. This phenomenon is particularly evident in certain irregular verbs: it. venire (to come) future tense: verrò = English I will/shall come; German: Ich werde kommen; Hungarian: fogok jönni*.* Besides, most regular verbs have even changed the stem in the future, ex. canterò = cantare + ho = I'll sing. We can find irregular verbs in French, Spanish, Italian and so on, whereas in Portuguese there are so few irregular verbs in the future and conditional tenses, for this reason they can easily be split and a personal pronoun still inserted between the verb stem and the ending.


----------



## apmoy70

Modern Greek has lost the Classical synthetic future and constructs the future tense by combining the future particle «θα» (θa) - _historically derived from the verb «θέλω» ('θelo)-->want + generic subordinator «να» (na) which roughly corresponds to English to: «Θέλω να»>«θε' να»>«θα»_ - with either the imperfective or perfective aspects of the verb, i.e. «θα γράφω» (θa 'ɣrafo)-->_I will be writing_; «θα γράψω» (θa 'ɣrapso)-->_I will write_ (the aspects are expressed by two separate verb stems; «θα» + present stem, or, «θα» + verb stem usually with _s_ added)


----------



## Tjahzi

The Scandinavian languages, too, form the future tense analytically.


----------



## Rallino

Turkish has a future tense. We obtain it via adding the suffix -ecek/-acak to the verb stem.

Ex: Yapmak (to do) -> yapacak (he will do).


----------



## francisgranada

Rallino said:


> Turkish has a future tense. We obtain it via adding the suffix -ecek/-acak to the verb stem.
> 
> Ex: Yapmak (to do) -> yapacak (he will do).


 
The suffix -ecek/-acak can be analyzised somehow etymologically, or it's an "abstract" suffix today?


----------



## Rallino

francisgranada said:


> The suffix -ecek/-acak can be analyzised somehow etymologically, or it's an "abstract" suffix today?



I have searched its etymology just now, but couldn't find anything useful. I'm thinking that it's an abstract suffix.


----------



## Istriano

olaszinho said:


> . dar-to-ei; falar-lhe-emos; pagar-te-ei, etc.


These forms are obsolete in Brazil.


I don't know what is meant by ''languages without future'',
in most languages the future tense is formed analitically, that is, with the help of an auxiliary verb:


_I will part ~ I'm going to __part _in English or
_Vou partir _in Portuguese

Some people argue that Latin had no real  future tense because in the 1st and 2nd conjugation the future is semianalytical: _amabo _is nothing more than _*ama*re-ha*b*e*o*_ (_to love I have to_),
and in 3rd and 4th conjugation the forms of present subjunctive are used for ''future indicative''.


----------



## Istriano

olaszinho said:


> Hi again.
> I'd like to add something about the future tense.  In most romance languages (Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan) verbs are undoubtedly more complex than in other languages from a morphological point of view. For instance both the future tense and the conditional possess synthetic forms again,  unlike English, German, Hungarian and so on. Nowadays, the verb stem and the endings are completely blended.




Well, at least in Brazil, syntactical future is not used at all in the spoken language, except for the form _será _which functions as a word introducing doubt (_Será que ele tem razão?_)

We use the analytical forms instead (except with the verb *ir *''to go'' when we use the present simple):

_Vou cantar. _= I am going to sing.
_Vou estar cantando_. = I will be singing.
_Amanhã eu vou para a praia. _= Tomorrow I'm going to go to the beach.


The same happened to the conditional: _Eu ia amar_ is more frequent than _amaria _(even _amava _is more frequent than _amaria _in the spoken language).
But syntactical conditional is still more frequent than the syntactical future.


----------



## jazyk

The third and fourth conjugations have different forms in the future and in the subjunctive (as well as all other conjugations).

legere (to read):
future indicative: legam, leges, leget, legemus, legetis, legent
present subjunctive: legam, legas, legat, legamus, legatis, legant

audire (to hear):
future indicative: audiam, audies, audiet, audiemus, audient
present subjunctive: audiam, audias, audiat, audiamus, audiant

Anyonce can see that only the first person is the same in both conjugations. What you are saying proves nothing.


----------



## Rallino

Istriano said:


> These forms are obsolete in Brazil.
> 
> 
> I don't know what is meant by ''languages without future'',
> in most languages the future tense is formed analitically, that is, with the help of an auxiliary verb:
> 
> [...]



How about when there is an if-clause?

Is it obsolete to say _Se ele quiser, dar-lhe-ei_? Or do you say: "vou dar-lhe"?

Thanks


----------



## Istriano

Rallino said:


> How about when there is an if-clause?
> 
> Is it obsolete to say _Se ele quiser, dar-lhe-ei_? Or do you say: "vou dar-lhe"?
> 
> Thanks



*Se ele quiser, eu vou dar para/a ele.*


----------



## Istriano

> *Future tense*
> The inflected future tense is hardly ever used in the spoken language and is felt to be quite formal, even in writing, although it is much used in news reporting.


Modern BRAZILIAN PORTUGUESE Grammar; page 131
_John Whitlam_
First edition published 2011 by Routledge
ISBN 0-203-84392-4 Master e-book ISBN


----------



## olaszinho

Istriano said:


> These forms are obsolete in Brazil.
> 
> I was referring to European Portuguese, I do not speak Brazilian. One can find the above rules in all contemporary grammars of European Portuguese. In order to express future actions, another interesting Portuguese form is the following:
> hei-de cantar  I will/shall sing
> hás-de cantar you will sing and so on
> há-de cantar
> havemos de cantar
> hão-de cantar
> Similar forms can be found in Sardian as well. We can highlight the importance of the auxiliary haver (to have) to form both analytical and sythetic future tenses in the Romance languages.
> Romanian does not possess a synthetic future tense either, unlike most Romance languages.


----------



## OícheGheall

(Gaeilge / Gàidhlig / English)


 In northern and eastern areas of Ulster (geographically the northern quarter of Ireland), ‘cha’ rather than ‘ní’ is used all/most of the time as the negative particle in Irish Gaelic (Gaeilge).

This trait is most common nowadays in north County Donegal; Fánad (_Fannad_),Toraigh (Tory), Cloch Cheannfhaola (Cloghaneely), Gaoth Dobhair (Gweedore), and Ros Goill (Roguill). 

‘Cha’, however, cannot be followed by the future tense. In order to express something in the future in the negative, you must use the present tense, with one exception; ‘Bí’ (Be).

So, ‘Chan ólann mé níos mó’ can mean “I don’t drink anymore” or “I wont drink anymore”. In most Gaelic-speaking areas of Ireland to the south, the use of ‘ní’ clarifies the meaning; compare ‘ní ólann mé níos mó’ (I do not drink anymore) with ‘ní ólfaidh mé níos mó’ (I won’t drink anymore). Níos mó = (any)more.

In Scottish Gaelic (Gàidhlig) the difference between present and future is even more blurred. There is no future tense per se. Instead, the (“normal”) present/future tense is usually used to indicate the future tense, and the _present tense of the verb ‘bi’ (be)_ *plus *a’ (or ag before a vowel) *plus *_present particle/gerund_. Thus, while ‘cuir mi a-steach air’ does mean both “I irritate him” and “I will irritate him”, in conversation ‘tha mi a’ cur a-steach air’ means both “I am irritating him” (which is the literal translation) and “I irritate him”.

Notwithstanding this, here follow comparisons;

*Verb: ‘Cuir’ (Put)*
Gaelic (Southern Ireland) > Gaelic (North&East Ulster) > Gaelic (Scotland) > English
Chuir Jack > Chuir Jack > Chuir Jack > Jack put
Cuireann Jack > Cuireann Jack > Cuiridh Jack > Jack puts
Cuirfidh Jack > Cuirfidh Jack > Cuiridh Jack > Jack will put
Níor chuir Jack > Char chuir Jack > Cha do chuir Jack > Jack did not put
Ní chuireann Jack > Cha chuireann Jack > Cha chuir Jack > Jack does not put
Ní chuirfidh Jack > Cha chuireann Jack > Cha chuir Jack > Jack will not put
Tá mé ag cur > Tá mé ag cur > Tha mi a’ cur > I am putting

*Verb: ‘Tuig’ (Understand)*
Gaelic (Southern Ireland) > Gaelic (North&East Ulster) > Gaelic (Scotland) > English
Thuig Jack > Thuig Jack > Thuig Jack> Jack understood
Tuigeann Jack > Tuigeann Jack > Tuigidh Jack > Jack understands
Tuigfidh Jack > Tuigfidh Jack > Tuigidh Jack > Jack will understand
Níor thuig Jack > Char thuig Jack > Cha do thuig Jack > Jack did not understand
Ní thuigeann Jack > Cha dtigeann* Jack > Cha thuig Jack > Jack does not understand
Ní thuigfidh Jack > Cha dtigeann Jack > Cha thuig Jack > Jack will not understand
Tá mé ag tuiscint > Tá mé ag tuigbheáil > Tha mi a’ tuigsinn > I am understanding

* ‘Cha’ ecplipses the following verb if the verb begins with ‘d’ or ‘t’; eg. ‘druid’ (shut) > Cha ndruideann siad an doras ina ndiaidh (They don’t/wont shut the door after them).

*Verb: ‘Fág’ / ‘Fàg’ (Leave)*
Gaelic (Southern Ireland) > Gaelic (North&East Ulster) > Gaelic (Scotland) > English
D’fhág Jack > D’fhág Jack > Dh’fhàg Jack > Jack left
Fágann Jack > Fágann Jack > Fàgaidh Jack > Jack leaves
Fágfaidh Jack > Fágfaidh Jack > Fàgaidh Jack > Jack will leave
Níor fhág Jack > Char fhág Jack > Cha do dh’fhàg Jack > Jack did not leave
Ní fhágann Jack > Chan fhágann Jack > Chan fhàg Jack > Jack does not leave
Ní fhágfaidh Jack > Chan fhágann Jack > Chan fhàg Jack > Jack will not leave
Tá mé ag fágáil > Tá mé ag fágáil > Tha mi a’ fàgail > I am leaving

*Verb: ‘Éist’ / ‘Èisd’ (Listen)*
Gaelic (Southern Ireland) > Gaelic (North&East Ulster) > Gaelic (Scotland) > English
D’éist Jack > D’éist Jack > Dh’èisd Jack > Jack listened
Éisteann Jack > Éisteann Jack > Èisdidh Jack > Jack listens
Éistfidh Jack > Éistfidh Jack > Èisdidh Jack > Jack will listen
Níor éist Jack > Char éist Jack > Cha do dh’èisd Jack > Jack did not listen
Ní éisteann Jack > Chan éisteann Jack > Chan èisd Jack > Jack does not listen
Ní éistfidh Jack > Chan éisteann Jack > Chan èisd Jack > Jack will not listen
Tá mé ag éisteacht > Tá mé ag éisteacht > Tha mi ag èisteachd > I am listening


----------



## OícheGheall

*Verb: ‘Bí’ / 'Bi' (Be)*
Gaelic (Southern Ireland) > Gaelic (North&East Ulster) > Gaelic (Scotland) > English
Bhí Jack [ag dul] > Bhí Jack [ag dul] > Bha Jack [a’ dol] > Jack was [going]
Tá Jack [ag dul] > Tá Jack [ag dul] > Tha Jack [a’ dol] > Jack is (ie. right now) [going]
Bíonn Jack [ag dul] > Bíonn Jack [ag dul] > Bidh Jack [a’ dol] > Jack is (ie. regularly) [Jack goes]
Beidh Jack [ag dul] > Beidh Jack [ag dul] > Bidh/Bithidh Jack [a’ dol] > Jack will be [going]
Ní raibh Jack [ag dul] > Cha raibh Jack [ag dul] > Cha robh Jack [a’ dol] > Jack is not [going]
Níl** Jack [ag dul] > Chan*** fhuil Jack [ag dul] > Cha bhidh/bhithidh Jack [a’ dol] > Jack is not [going]
Ní bhíonn Jack [ag dul] > Cha bhíonn Jack [ag dul] > Cha bhidh/bhithidh Jack [a’ dol] > Jack is (ie. regularly) [Jack goes]
Ní bheidh Jack [ag dul] > Cha bhíonn Jack [ag dul] > Cha bhidh/bhithidh Jack [a’ dol] > Jack will not be [going]

** ‘níl’ formed by the contraction of ‘ní fhuil’ – ‘fh’ is always silent in Gaelic
*** ‘cha’ changes to ‘chan’ before a vowel or ‘fh’+vowel

Interestingly the Scottish forms cuiridh, tuigidh, fàgaidh, and èisdidh also appear in Irish (in Ulster *only*) as cuiridh, tuigidh, fágaidh, and éistidh but are strictly used only for relating long tales/events (eg. when telling lengendary stories to children).

Evidence of the historic prevelence of all these Ulster forms (particularlycha+_present_ instead of ní+_future _when referring to future events) can be found in extensive recordings and writings of people from areas in which the language ceased to be spoken is no longer spoken as a first language - Counties Aontroim/Antrim (where the last native speakers died c. 1980s), Ard Mhacha/Armagh (c. 1960s), Doire/Derry/Londonderry (c. 1950s), Dún na nGall/Donegal, An Dún/Down (c1860s), Fear Manach/Fermanagh (c. 1930s), Lú/Louth (c. 1980s), Muineachán/Monaghan (1940s), and Tír Eoghain/Tyrone (c. 1970s).


----------



## Outsider

Eroi Del Mare said:


> Hi,i am sorry if someone has misinterpreted the title but on my own  language/dialect there is not the future ,usually we build the future  using the present simple instead of the future or using a construction  with the verb to have (the verb to have has always the meaning of "to  must",obviously in the present) + the other verb in the infinitive form.
> 
> Ex:
> This evening I [will] go to the theatre.
> This evening I must [will] go to the theatre .
> 
> I heard that the semitic languages have this characteristic,but i can t confirm.
> 
> Excluding other  Italian languages ​​/ dialects (like Sicilian and / or  Calabrian),there is,somewhere,a language without the  future ?
> 
> Thanks


There are plenty. Japanese is one example, if I remember well. Closer to home, all Romance languages have constructs similar to the one in your dialect.

P.S. I suppose a distinction might still be made between cases like the Romance languages, where some form of the future exists but is analytic (a periphrasis), and cases like that of Japanese, where the verb form that expresses the future is exactly the same as the one that expresses the present.


----------



## origumi

Eroi Del Mare said:


> I heard that the semitic languages have this characteristic,but i can t confirm.


Hebrew, a Semitic language, contains a fully developed future tense. I think that most or all Semitic languages do. Some European scholars claim that the modern Hebrew future tense evolved from "imperfect" of biblical times (1st millenium BC). I think they are wrong, and in any case if it looks like future and behaves like future and has the meaning of future it must be future.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

OícheGheall said:


> *Verb: ‘Bí’ / 'Bi' (Be)*
> Gaelic (Southern Ireland) > Gaelic (North&East Ulster) > Gaelic (Scotland) > English
> Bhí Jack [ag dul] > Bhí Jack [ag dul] > Bha Jack [a’ dol] > Jack was [going]
> Tá Jack [ag dul] > Tá Jack [ag dul] > Tha Jack [a’ dol] > Jack is (ie. right now) [going]
> Bíonn Jack [ag dul] > Bíonn Jack [ag dul] > Bidh Jack [a’ dol] > Jack is (ie. regularly) [Jack goes]
> Beidh Jack [ag dul] > Beidh Jack [ag dul] > Bidh/Bithidh Jack [a’ dol] > Jack will be [going]
> Ní raibh Jack [ag dul] > Cha raibh Jack [ag dul] > Cha robh Jack [a’ dol] > Jack is not [going]
> Níl** Jack [ag dul] > Chan*** fhuil Jack [ag dul] > Cha bhidh/bhithidh Jack [a’ dol] > Jack is not [going]
> Ní bhíonn Jack [ag dul] > Cha bhíonn Jack [ag dul] > Cha bhidh/bhithidh Jack [a’ dol] > Jack is (ie. regularly) [Jack goes]
> Ní bheidh Jack [ag dul] > Cha bhíonn Jack [ag dul] > Cha bhidh/bhithidh Jack [a’ dol] > Jack will not be [going]
> 
> ** ‘níl’ formed by the contraction of ‘ní fhuil’ – ‘fh’ is always silent in Gaelic
> *** ‘cha’ changes to ‘chan’ before a vowel or ‘fh’+vowel
> 
> Interestingly the Scottish forms cuiridh, tuigidh, fàgaidh, and èisdidh also appear in Irish (in Ulster *only*) as cuiridh, tuigidh, fágaidh, and éistidh but are strictly used only for relating long tales/events (eg. when telling lengendary stories to children).
> 
> Evidence of the historic prevelence of all these Ulster forms (particularlycha+_present_ instead of ní+_future _when referring to future events) can be found in extensive recordings and writings of people from areas in which the language ceased to be spoken is no longer spoken as a first language - Counties Aontroim/Antrim (where the last native speakers died c. 1980s), Ard Mhacha/Armagh (c. 1960s), Doire/Derry/Londonderry (c. 1950s), Dún na nGall/Donegal, An Dún/Down (c1860s), Fear Manach/Fermanagh (c. 1930s), Lú/Louth (c. 1980s), Muineachán/Monaghan (1940s), and Tír Eoghain/Tyrone (c. 1970s).



Very interesting. Thank you for that erudite explanation.


----------



## clevermizo

origumi said:


> Hebrew, a Semitic language, contains a fully developed future tense. I think that most or all Semitic languages do. Some European scholars claim that the modern Hebrew future tense evolved from "imperfect" of biblical times (1st millenium BC). I think they are wrong, and in any case if it looks like future and behaves like future and has the meaning of future it must be future.



Well I think this is based on comparison with other Semitic languages like Arabic, in which the the cognate verb forms are either unmarked for tense or typically "imperfective" or understood as the present tense.

Arabic lacks a separate future tense conjugation, both in standard/Classical and in colloquial dialects. A particle is added to the present tense/imperfective form of the verb and this lends a future meaning.

For example: He goes يذهب _yadhhabu. _He will go سأذهب _sa-yadhhabu_.
And in Syrian dialect for example: He goes بيروح _birūħ, _He will go _raħ/ħa-yrūħ _حيروح/رح يروح(in the former, the prefix b- is added to form the habitual present, and raħ or ħa is added to form the future to the same stem). 

I mean semantically of course the future tense is there, but it's still analytical and doesn't have a separate conjugation paradigm.

The colloquial forms future particles رح/حا　raħ/ħa are probably derived from the word رايح　which is the participle "going" in which case it's quite like the Voy/vas/va a X-ar we find in Romance languages. Also in the Levant the verb "to want" can be used to form a future tense, though I think a more "immediate" future. In standard Arabic I think the particle sa- س is a shortened form of the fuller future particle سَوفَ　sawfa, which can also be used to form the future. I'm not entirely certain what _saufa_ means.


----------



## Blackman

Sardinian language, considered the most conservative of the romance languages ( probably because it's an island in the middle of the Mediterranean sea, with difficult cultural exchanges ), has no future at all ( it's not an omen....). We do use a weird construction, at least compared to the italian, present perfect to have/to do+a+infinitive.

_We will say_ becomes _noisi amusu a narrere_ ( this is for Francis...)


----------



## francisgranada

Blackman said:


> ..._We will say_ becomes _noisi amusu a narrere_ ( this is for Francis...)


 
Aggràssias


----------

