# Future tense



## titan2

Does German have a future tense? If English doesn't and English is derived from German, then German should not either.


----------



## Kajjo

"You will be rich." ... is not future tense? Maybe I do not understand your question.

Kajjo


----------



## gaer

titan2 said:
			
		

> Does German have a future tense? If English doesn't and English is derived from German, then German should not either.


Both German and English have a future tense, and it is formed in much the same way. We don't understand your question! 

Gaer


----------



## Jana337

I am not a linguist but I gather from past discussions in this forums that some do not consider will + infinitive (and equivalents in other languages) a tense. A tense in the proper sense of the word allegedly involves a change in the verb itself (e.g. I will speak in Italian = parlerò, so Italian has a future tense). I hope I haven't misrepresented the view. Needless to say, this theoretical understanding of tenses deviates from what an ordinary learner can possibly encounter.

Jana


----------



## gaer

Jana337 said:
			
		

> I am not a linguist but I gather from past discussions in this forums that some do not consider will + infinitive (and equivalents in other languages) a tense. A tense in the proper sense of the word allegedly involves a change in the verb itself (e.g. I will speak in Italian = parlerò, so Italian has a future tense). I hope I haven't misrepresented the view. Needless to say, this theoretical understanding of tenses deviates from what an ordinary learner can possibly encounter.
> 
> Jana


That may be so, Jana. I do know that the term "tense" is not only very common in English but is also the standard term used. Frankly, one of the reasons German seemed logical to me is that it works much the same as English. Spanish and French are much more difficult for me to understand, even theoretically, because of the way the verbs themselves, as you say, "change".

But I am certainly no linguist. Perhaps Titan will explain what he means. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

Jana337 said:
			
		

> I am not a linguist but I gather from past discussions in this forums that some do not consider will + infinitive (and equivalents in other languages) a tense. A tense in the proper sense of the word allegedly involves a change in the verb itself (e.g. I will speak in Italian = parlerò, so Italian has a future tense). I hope I haven't misrepresented the view. Needless to say, this theoretical understanding of tenses deviates from what an ordinary learner can possibly encounter.
> 
> Jana


 
Hm, judging it from that point of view, I would not call "je parlerai" (FR) or "yo hablaré" (SP) a future tense either. They are just formed by using the infinitive + preterite (SP)/imperfect (FR) ending. It is interesting, though, that it does not work this way in Italian - the stem changes!

There is no real future in German except for "werden + infinitive". The future tense in German, however, can be "circumscribed" by using a temporal adverbial expression and the present tense:

Morgen komme ich nach Hause. = Morgen werde ich nach Hause kommen.


----------



## se16teddy

English is not derived from German.  A core of our modern English and a core of our modern German are derived from a common root, which scholars take pleasure in trying to reconstruct.  

English has innumerable ways of referring to the future, some of which are often arbitrarily selected for the appelation 'future tenses'. 
- I will go
- I shall go
- I may go
- I am due to go
- I am going tomorrow
- I go in August
- I am to go 
- I have to go
- I intend to go
...
English and German are related.  English and German share some ways to refer to the future (Ich will gehen, ich soll gehen / I will go, I shall go, though the semantics differ); but other ways to refer to the future are used in only one of the languages (I am to go, ich werde gehen).


----------



## Whodunit

se16teddy said:
			
		

> English has innumerable ways of referring to the future, some of which are often arbitrarily selected for the appelation 'future tenses'.


 
If you consider "werden" (will) a modal verb and not an auxiliary verb exclusively, you are right that you can say "you shall go tomorrow" to express a future action. By the way, you forgot about "I am going to go". 



> English and German are related. English and German share some ways to refer to the future (Ich will gehen, ich soll gehen / I will go, I shall go, though the semantics differ); but other ways to refer to the future are used in only one of the languages (I am to go, ich werde gehen).


 
Doesn't "I am to go" mean "Ich soll gehen"? This is how I've always been understanding it.


----------



## Outsider

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Hm, judging it from that point of view, I would not call "je parlerai" (FR) or "yo hablaré" (SP) a future tense either. They are just formed by using the infinitive + preterite (SP)/imperfect (FR) ending.


They have fused by now. Native speakers interpret _parlerai_ and _hablaré_ as single words, whereas "will" and "speak" are seen as independent words.


----------



## englishman

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Hm, judging it from that point of view, I would not call "je parlerai" (FR) or "yo hablaré" (SP) a future tense either. They are just formed by using the infinitive + preterite (SP)/imperfect (FR) ending.


A minor point: -ai is not an imperfect ending - that would be -ais, and then the expression "je parlerais" is in the conditional i.e. "I would speak". The future endings are distinct from the imperfect in French:

future: -ai -as -a -ons -ez -ont
imperfect: -ais -ais -ait -ions -iez- aient

Given that this is the German forum, I'll stop now however.

You have a strange idea regarding tenses BTW. Remember that "future tense" merely means "an expression indicating future time", and all natural languages can do that, so they all have future tenses. Some, like English, have multiple ways in which to express the future tense, but they are all future tenses nonetheless.


----------



## Outsider

englishman said:
			
		

> You have a strange idea regarding tenses BTW.


I don't think it's Whodunit's idea.


----------



## elroy

Here's the bottom line:

If English has a future tense, so does German.
If English does not, neither does German.

In both languages, the future is expressed using more than one word.

And yes, English is not derived from German.


----------



## Whodunit

englishman said:
			
		

> A minor point: -ai is not an imperfect ending - that would be -ais, and then the expression "je parlerais" is in the conditional i.e. "I would speak". The future endings are distinct from the imperfect in French:
> 
> future: -ai -as -a -ons -ez -ont
> imperfect: -ais -ais -ait -ions -iez- aient
> 
> Given that this is the German forum, I'll stop now however.


 
You are right. I was talking about the passé simple, but I used the wrong English word. 



> You have a strange idea regarding tenses BTW. Remember that "future tense" merely means "an expression indicating future time", and all natural languages can do that, so they all have future tenses. Some, like English, have multiple ways in which to express the future tense, but they are all future tenses nonetheless.


 
Outsider is right: It was not my idea that German, English, and French have no future tense. If you ask me, I don't even know any language that has such a "real" future tense. Of course, expressions like "ich werde gehen" and "j'allerai" indicate a future action, but they don't have own verb endings (I'm still thinking about the Italian parlerò, why has there been a vowel shift?).


----------



## jazyk

Parlare + ho = parlerò
Parlare + hai = parlerai
Parlare + ha = parlerà
Parlare + abbiamo = parleremo
Parlare + avete = parlerete
Parlare + hanno = parleranno


----------



## titan2

I knew "derived" was not the best term, but I didn't have time to change the post.  

 Next question: How does modern German differ from the language or languages spoken by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes who entered Britain on the Roman withdrawal?
Open a new thread please. 



> Ask about only one topic in each thread. If you have more than one question, open a thread for each of them. Rules


----------



## Jana337

titan2 said:
			
		

> I knew "derived" was not the best term, but I didn't have time to change the post.


 Good to have you here again.  Could you explain what you meant?


> Does German have a future tense? If English doesn't...


 In which sense does English not have a future tense? Which languages do?

Jana


----------



## Jana337

jazyk said:
			
		

> Parlare + ho = parlerò
> Parlare + hai = parlerai
> Parlare + ha = parlerà
> Parlare + abbiamo = parleremo
> Parlare + avete = parlerete
> Parlare + hanno = parleranno


Yes, that's right. 





			
				Whodunit said:
			
		

> Hm, judging it from that point of view, I would not call "je parlerai" (FR) or "yo hablaré" (SP) a future tense either. They are just formed by using the infinitive + preterite (SP)/imperfect (FR) ending. It is interesting, though, that it does not work this way in Italian - the stem changes!


This difference between Italian and other Romance langauges is a bit artificial. As Jazyk demonstrates, the Italian future tense basically consists of an infinitive and avere, an auxiliary verb. The change in the stem (parl*e*rai) is not a defining feature of the Italian future tense. It is actually a peculiarity of verbs ending in -are (admittedly, there are many of them).

Either way, I hope Titan explains it. 

Jana


----------



## titan2

Jana337 said:
			
		

> I am not a linguist but I gather from past discussions in this forums that some do not consider will + infinitive (and equivalents in other languages) a tense. A tense in the proper sense of the word allegedly involves a change in the verb itself (e.g. I will speak in Italian = parlerò, so Italian has a future tense). I hope I haven't misrepresented the view. Needless to say, this theoretical understanding of tenses deviates from what an ordinary learner can possibly encounter.
> 
> Jana



   I simply meant what you stated in your post, i.e. the discussions I read on this forum and on the Wikipedia concerning tenses in English. I inferred that since English and German are related, the grammar should be similar.


----------



## Jana337

titan2 said:
			
		

> I simply meant what you stated in your post, i.e. the discussions I read on this forum and on the Wikipedia concerning tenses in English. I inferred that since English and German are related, the grammar should be similar.


 OK.  A link would be helpful if you can find one.

Jana


----------



## englishman

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Outsider is right: It was not my idea that German, English, and French have no future tense. If you ask me, I don't even know any language that has such a "real" future tense.



The second sentence above seems to contradict the first, unless I'm not understanding you. Anyway, I've no idea what you consider to be a "real" future tense - I've never heard it suggested that the future tense forms in English or German are less "real" than those of French or Spanish.



			
				Whodunit said:
			
		

> j'allerai indicate a future action, but they don't have own verb endings



It's *j'irai.

*But I don't understand why you think that a future tense requires a stem + endings - I've read plenty of grammar books over the years, but I've never seen that suggested before. Do you have a specific reference to something that suggests this ?


----------



## Whodunit

englishman said:
			
		

> The second sentence above seems to contradict the first, unless I'm not understanding you. Anyway, I've no idea what you consider to be a "real" future tense - I've never heard it suggested that the future tense forms in English or German are less "real" than those of French or Spanish.


 
The sentences were not supposed to contradict themselves. The first sentence said that I it was not my idea that those language have no future tense and the second one states that *if* you considered those languages not to have a future tense, would there be a language that has one, indeed?

By "real" I mean that there is a new verb ending for the future tense. German and English use "werden/will", French use the passé simple ending, Spanish and Italian use the endings of "to have" in the present, Arabic uses a future particle, ...



> It's *j'irai.*


 
 What a mistake!



> But I don't understand why you think that a future tense requires a stem + endings - I've read plenty of grammar books over the years, but I've never seen that suggested before. Do you have a specific reference to something that suggests this ?


 
If a future tense requires the "infinitive" and some ending, the word is not changed, but there's just added something to that word. It's the same with "werde gehen" and "will go". The words "werde" and "will" are single words. In the Romance languages, the endings are just remnants of the word "to have" (don't ask me why!). In this language family, the two words are merged now and you seem to see a new verb tense. 

It is, by the way, the same in Arabic. The word "sa" is always connected to the "infinitive" (there's no infinitive in Arabic as it in English) to indicate a future action, but no one would call it an own tense. 

I hope it's clearer now.


----------



## jazyk

> By "real" I mean that there is a new verb ending for the future tense. German and English use "werden/will", *French use the passé simple ending*, Spanish and Italian use the endings of "to have" in the present, Arabic uses a future particle, ...


Not exactly:

Aimer
Passé simple: j'aimai, tu aimas, il aima, nous aimâmes,vous aimâtes, ils aimèrent
Futur: j'aimerai, tu aimeras, il aimera, nous aimerons, vous aimerez, ils aimeront

In case anybody cares, it's the same in Portuguese:

Falar + hei = falarei
Falar + hás = falarás
Falar + há = falará
Falar + hemos/havemos = falareis
Falar + haveis = falareis
Falar + ão = falarão


----------



## se16teddy

englishman said:
			
		

> Remember that "future tense" merely means "an expression indicating future time", and all natural languages can do that, so they all have future tenses.


 
I don't think this is the usual definition of a 'future tense'. By this definition, 'I gehe morgen weg', 'Je pars demain' and 'I am going tomorrow' are all examples of future tenses. Usually, though, we think of these forms as present tenses, but acknowledge that in English, French and German present tenses very often refer to the future (and sometimes to the past). We call 'je pars', 'I am going' and 'ich gehe weg' present tenses because if we see these forms isolated and out of context we presume they will refer to the present. 

I think when we say 'future tense' we usually mean 
a) a form of a word (a verb) that more often than not refers to the future (such as 'irai'), 
and we very often also include
b) a unit consisting of an auxiliary verb plus infinitive or similar that more often than not refers to the future, such as 'wird gehen'. 
I think that 'wird gehen' fits definition b) fine, but I have some doubts about 'will go' (eg 'the car won't go', 'I won't go!'

I wonder if French grammars style 'je vais aller' a future tense?


----------



## englishman

se16teddy said:
			
		

> I don't think this is the usual definition of a 'future tense'. By this definition, 'I gehe morgen weg', 'Je pars demain' and 'I am going tomorrow' are all examples of future tenses.


They all look like fine future tenses to me: they express something that will happen in the future. What more do you need ?



			
				se16teddy said:
			
		

> Usually, though, we think of these forms as present tenses, but acknowledge that in English, French and German present tenses very often refer to the future (and sometimes to the past).


Is that the Royal We ?  It doesn't include me. When "present tenses .. refer to the future", as in the "going to" future tense, it's a future tense. It is, to my mind, merely another form of the future tense.



			
				se16teddy said:
			
		

> We call 'je pars', 'I am going' and 'ich gehe weg' present tenses because if we see these forms isolated and out of context we presume they will refer to the present.


Right. But we're not talking about them being isolated and out of context; you can't just ignore some of the words in the sentence when parsing it, can you ?



			
				se16teddy said:
			
		

> I think when we say 'future tense' we usually mean
> a) a form of a word (a verb) that more often than not refers to the future (such as 'irai'),
> and we very often also include
> b) a unit consisting of an auxiliary verb plus infinitive or similar that more often than not refers to the future, such as 'wird gehen'.
> I think that 'wird gehen' fits definition b) fine, but I have some doubts about 'will go' (eg 'the car won't go', 'I won't go!'
> 
> I wonder if French grammars style 'je vais aller' a future tense?


Yikes. I prefer my definition. It's rather more practical to use. 

What we need now is a professor of linguistics to lay down the law. Any about ?


----------



## heidita

jazyk said:
			
		

> Parlare + ho = parlerò
> Parlare + hai = parlerai
> Parlare + ha = parlerà
> Parlare + abbiamo = parleremo
> Parlare + avete = parlerete
> Parlare + hanno = parleranno


This is the exact reasoning MrMagoo used when I stated that Spanish did have a _proper_ future tense, so to speak. 
The Spanish future tense is formed the same way as the Italian one. So, linguistically speaking, Spanish doesn't have a _proper_ tense either.

In any case, I think the question is not whether we have a future tense or not, I don't think there can be any doubt about that, but if we have a proper future tense, formed with endings and changing the stem. The answer to this question must be no, we do not.


----------



## Honour

Afaik romance languages all express future (not near future) in "have to do" form. For instance, parleras (as +parler), hablare (he + hablar). I don't have any idea of german but english forms with modals. I don't know how linguists categorize them but in turkish we have pretty different  conjugation for future tense. The endings are different and have no relation to another verbe. Taking this in account, could we say romance languages don't have a real future tense too? Actually, this way of classification seems weird to me.


----------



## badgrammar

Well, no, because what is the future tense in French? Take the verb être...

Je serai
tu seras
il sera
nous serons 
vous serez
ils seront

So while in fact you can conjugate using the verb "avoir" (je vais être), there is also a verb that is independent of any other auxiliary verb, including 'to have'.


			
				Turk said:
			
		

> Afaik romance languages all express future (not near future) in "have to do" form. For instance, parleras (as +parler), hablare (he + hablar). I don't have any idea of german but english forms with modals. I don't know how linguists categorize them but in turkish we have pretty different  conjugation for future tense. The endings are different and have no relation to another verbe. Taking this in account, could we say romance languages don't have a real future tense too? Actually, this way of classification seems weird to me.


----------



## Whodunit

Ok, I have to admit that I was wrong about the thing with the passé simple. French forms its future by adding the ending of the verb "to have" (avoir) in the present:

j'*ai* --> je parler*ai*
tu *as* --> tu parler*as*
il *a* --> il parler*a*
nous av*ons* --> nous parler*ons*
vous av*ez* --> vous parler*ez*
ils *ont* --> ils parler*ont*


----------



## se16teddy

englishman said:
			
		

> What we need now is a professor of linguistics to lay down the law. Any about ?


How would that help?  I'll still define 'future tense' however I wish to suit my present purpose!


----------



## Whodunit

badgrammar said:
			
		

> Well, no, because what is the future tense in French? Take the verb être...
> 
> Je serai
> tu seras
> il sera
> nous serons
> vous serez
> ils seront
> 
> So while in fact you can conjugate using the verb "avoir" (je vais être), there is also a verb that is independent of any other auxiliary verb, including 'to have'.


 
The word "aller" is a special case (like "être") and can be considered irregular. But, even the new stem is logical: The stem "va" comes from Latin "vadere" and "ir" is derived from "ire". I'm not sure yet where that "ser" (je serai) comes from, but could it have to do with the verb "serere"?


----------



## panjabigator

I don't understand how a language cannot have a future tense.  I consider the "will + verb" a future construction....I guess the difference is in whether it is one word or two.

Do you want future tenses from all languages or is this just a discussion of German, English, French and Italian?


----------



## Whodunit

panjabigator said:
			
		

> I don't understand how a language cannot have a future tense. I consider the "will + verb" a future construction....I guess the difference is in whether it is one word or two.
> 
> Do you want future tenses from all languages or is this just a discussion of German, English, French and Italian?


 
It would be interesting to see how Panjabi and Hindi form their future tenses. Do you use a particle (in Arabic "sa/sawfa"), a modal verb (in German "werden"/English "will"), or an ending (in Romance language: they add the ending of the word "to have" in the present)?


----------



## panjabigator

The tense in Panjabi and Hindi (actually all North Indian languages) change their endings.   There is a stem and that stays constant:

In the verb for to do (karnaa), the _kar_ is the stem part and the _naa_ is dropped and replaced with the endings (for present and future....past is a whole other ball park
_aa_ endings are masculine. _ii_ endings are feminine

*Panjabi*
I will do:  maiN karaaNgaa/ii
you (informal): tuuN kareNgaa/ii
he/she/it: eh/oh kareNgaa/ii (_eh_ is like este in Spanish and _oh_ is aquel) 
you (formal or plural):  tusiiN karoge
we: asiiN karaaNge/iaaN (iaaN is feminine plural)
them:  eh/oh kareNge/iaaN

*Hindi*
I will do:  maiM karuuNgaa/ii
 you (informal): tuu karegaa/ii
you (informal but more respectful then first): tum karoge/ii
 he/she/it: yah/vah karegaa/ii (_yah_ is like este in Spanish and _vah_ is aquel) 
 you (formal or plural):  Aap kareNge/ii
 we: ham kareNge
 them:  yah/vah kareNge


----------



## badgrammar

Ouuuu... Damn you!  Good point! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?  The present tense of avoir or the future tense of verbs in general?  



			
				Whodunit said:
			
		

> Ok, I have to admit that I was wrong about the thing with the passé simple. French forms its future by adding the ending of the verb "to have" (avoir) in the present:
> 
> j'*ai* --> je parler*ai*
> tu *as* --> tu parler*as*
> il *a* --> il parler*a*
> nous av*ons* --> nous parler*ons*
> vous av*ez* --> vous parler*ez*
> ils *ont* --> ils parler*ont*


----------



## cajzl

> In which sense does English not have a future tense? Which languages do?


 
The future tense in the modern European languages is *periphrastic* (maybe with exception of some Baltic languages).

The ancient IE languages had non-periphrastic future tense(s).

E.g. Latin: *cantabo, delebo, scribam, audiam*

but Vulgar Latin replaced it by the construction *cantare + habeo*, which gives cantaro (cantaré, cantarai, ...) in modern Romance languages.


----------



## robbie_SWE

I feel like I’m at a total loss  ! This thread has totally confused me. I checked my Romanian grammar book to check if the statement about Romance languages is right (that they form the future tense by adding "to have" at the end), but it doesn't make sense in Romanian. 

*a ajuta*_ (to help)_

*Future Ia (a conditional form): *
voi ajuta 
vei ajuta
va ajuta
vom ajuta
veti ajuta
vor ajuta

*Future Ib (the most common future form):* 
o sa ajut
o sa ajuti 
o sa ajute
o sa ajutam
o sa ajutati
o sa ajute

*Future Ic (also a common form, with the verb "to have" included):* 
am sa ajut
ai sa ajuti
are sa ajuta
avem sa ajutam
aveti sa ajutati
au sa ajute

*Future II: *
vom fi ajutat
vei fi ajutat
va fi ajutat
vom fi ajutat
veti fi ajutat 
vor fi ajutat

How can this be?? Romanian derives also from Vulgar Latin (the Greek, Slavic and Turkish influences have not left traces in the grammar), but lacks the *a ajuta + avea *to form the future tense. Can somebody bring any clarity?? 

  Grateful, 

  robbie


----------



## cajzl

My guess:

*am să ajut* corresponds to the Vulgar Latin future *habeo* + infinitive

where the infinitive is replaced by construction *să* + present (conjunctive?) - like in Greek or Bulgarian.

Nevertheless all the Romanian future tenses seem to be periphrastic.


----------



## Honour

badgrammar said:
			
		

> Ouuuu... Damn you! Good point! Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The present tense of avoir or the future tense of verbs in general?


 
That was what i tried to say at first . That's the general form of expressing future in romance languages.


----------



## badgrammar

Hakilsiin  dostum!


----------



## englishman

se16teddy said:
			
		

> How would that help?  I'll still define 'future tense' however I wish to suit my present purpose!



You can certainly define tenses anyway you like, but given that there are people who pick over the bones of this kind of stuff in detail, I'd be keen to have their opinion as to what constitutes a tense.


----------



## midismilex

In Taiwan, there're no future tense no matter who you are (pronoun) in the Taiwanese, Hakka and Mandarin languages. Though the grammar among these three languages still have somewhat different. It seems that the languages of our obriginals have future tense, I am not quite sure. Besides, the Tibetan and the Mongolian languages are somewhat quite complicated just like the Japanese language......Just a thought.

In this case "go", just put "會去" in the Mandanrin language after I/you(single and plural)/he/she/it/we/they, and you've already finished the sentence.^_^


----------



## karuna

cajzl said:
			
		

> The ancient IE languages had non-periphrastic future tense(s).


I think that Latvian has non-periphrastic future tense: _darīt _(inf. – to do) – _daru _(present – I do) – _darīšu _(future – I will do). 

Sometimes Latvians speaking English incorrectly use future tense where it shouldn't be used. _When it *will rain*__, I will be happy _because future tense is used in Latvian: _Kad *līs* lietus, es priecāšos._


----------



## Whodunit

karuna said:
			
		

> I think that Latvian has non-periphrastic future tense: _darīt _(inf. – to do) – _daru _(present – I do) – _darīšu _(future – I will do).
> 
> Sometimes Latvians speaking English incorrectly use future tense where it shouldn't be used. _When it *will rain*__, I will be happy _because future tense is used in Latvian: _Kad *līs* lietus, es priecāšos._


 
Well, so Latvian drops the "t", uses the infinitive stem (without the "t" of course) and adds š for the first person and s for the others. But as it seems, the verb būt (to have) has nothing to do with the future tense in Latvian, right?


----------



## vince

midismilex said:
			
		

> In Taiwan, there're no future tense no matter who you are (pronoun) in the Taiwanese, Hakka and Mandarin languages. Though the grammar among these three languages still have somewhat different. It seems that the languages of our obriginals have future tense, I am not quite sure. Besides, the Tibetan and the Mongolian languages are somewhat quite complicated just like the Japanese language......Just a thought.
> 
> In this case "go", just put "會去" in the Mandanrin language after I/you(single and plural)/he/she/it/we/they, and you've already finished the sentence.^_^


Isn't 會 essentially a future marker? Especially in Cantonese, where it does not have the meaning of "to know how" that it has in Mandarin. I mean, you can't say "Kam-jat ngo wui zou" since kam-jat means "yesterday" and ngo wui zou means "I will do", so perhaps wui can only refer to future events?

Does Taiwanese use 會 as a modal-like verb similar to "will" in English?
Ngo-dei *wui* tong nei heoi Heong-Kong = We *will* go to Hong Kong with you. How would you say this sentence in Taiwanese?


----------



## se16teddy

englishman said:
			
		

> You can certainly define tenses anyway you like, but given that there are people who pick over the bones of this kind of stuff in detail, I'd be keen to have their opinion as to what constitutes a tense.


 
I suspect that the expert, far from providing a single definition of 'tense', would more likely offer us a range of plausible definitions that we hadn't even thought of.


----------



## karuna

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Well, so Latvian drops the "t", uses the infinitive stem (without the "t" of course) and adds š for the first person and s for the others. But as it seems, the verb būt (to have) has nothing to do with the future tense in Latvian, right?



Latvian doesn't have the modal verb *to have. *It is the same *to be – būt.* But it is not used in future simple. However, perfect tenses are formed with _to be _+ past participle. _Es būšu aizgājis (_I will have gone) — for future perfect.


----------



## MarX

Hej!

I'd like to contribute my answer concerning Indonesian, but the question seems to be about German, and I don't want to be off topic.

Why is this thread not put in the German forum, anyway? 

MfG,


MarX


----------

