WHY WE CAN SAY

WHY WE CAN SAY
"They have always done it at noon"
BUT NOT "They have done it at noon"
AND NOT "My pet eats now"
(UNLESS NOW CONTRASTS WITH THEN
OR MEANS "NOWADAYS")

© 2005 by Orchid Land Publications

The above would provide the content for a good examination for present or future teachers of English. Importantly, it cannot be adequately dealt with if one holds the spurious view that English has a "present tense" and that eats or has is an instance of it.

Since at noon is a definite time in (what is un-English) They've done it at noon—though it is (linguistically at least) not a definite time when the number of repetitions is not specified, as in They've always done it at noon—the latter is acceptable where the former is not. (It should be mentioned that there are various reasons for not calling the present-anterior a past-definite modality.)

The difference is that the former includes a time span lasting up till the NOW of the speaker or writer, whereas the time span of the useta ("used to") example has ended before NOW.

While revising this page, I heard on the TV: "If you don't see any, you DIDN'T wear your night goggles the way you should've." (Whether the first predicate refers to any time or only a posterior time has no effect on the following comment.) The answering machine of a well-known telephone company tells the called, "Your call will be answered in the order in which it WAS received." For those who don't buy into the bogus idea that whatever certain literate people say is acceptable—an idea as bankrupt as its opposite, the sterile idea that there is no correctness, seeing that English has not academy that can standardize the language (even of a single country)—the only satisfying answer is that what fits (coheres with) the overall system is what should be recommended and commended, however one may designate it. If an action could've occurred at any time—i.e. not at some specific time—prior to the reference time, the past is inappropriate, the more so in that the action of the main clause can have taken place later than the time of speaking. The verb in the conclusion should be "you haven't worn."

Interestingly, this kind of error does not seem to occur with modal verbs. Cf. could've (or coulda, since //v// regularly drops out of ''ve and of before a consonant) in the third sentence above. Indeed, we now hear If they would've done it or increasingly If they did it in place of what has been the only correct form for a past counterfactual statement in past generations, viz. If they'd done it. Since the sequence of two //d//s occurring together get simplified in normal speaking tempos, one may speculate how the loss of the past-anterior came about here.

The only uses of anteriors that one generally hears on the media these days are some with already—said or implied:

(1) those found in examples like "I have been living here ten years" and "She had already been living there for a year."

(2) examples like "I've/'d already done it" are rapidly yielding to "I already did it."

The resulting If they done it would sound wrong and get corrected to If they did it. More likely, however—in view of the general loss of the non-modal anterior modalities—the difference between a counterfactual past and a real past was not enough to overcome the general loss even in contingency clauses. I once had a piece published in a prestigious university journal in which (without consulting me) the editor changed my If it was ( past non- \counter- factual) to If it were, ... thus altering the time and non-counterfactuality of what I'd written.

where one has in mind two specific times, not necessarily known. The former of these two examples could more easily be followed by: so it is not unlikely that they may go there on the next holiday.

We can say My pet eats now only if now means "nowadays" or when now contrasts with then, as in My cat was sick yesterday and wouldn't eat anything, but she eats now. Cf. My cat eats dogfood whenever he gets the chance, i.e. whenever he finds any left over. When we say that someone hears, smells, sees, understands, believes, knows, etc., we are not speaking of something limited to "present" time like "He's chewing on a bone"!

Very few languages distinguish present and exochronous forms; however, the Iberian (Spanish & Portuguese) distinction of ser and estar parallels in several significant respects the English distinction between is eating and eats. It should be (but apparently often isn't to the unsystematic mentality) that is in "I hope that she is on time tomorrow" is not a present, and that even in "She is a good child," is refers to something that is, temporally, entirely different from a present-time example like is being in "She is being good." Even in "I hope that when I get there tomorrow, he is working and not goofing off," is working or is goofing off are not presents, seeing that the time of the event in question is tomorrow! Mickey-Mouse terminology like historical present and whatever its posterior equivalent may be are unworthy of thinking adults.
It represents a high degree of grammatical incompetence to call something that is not a tense and is not used for a true present a "present tense" . . . because the forms derive from something that the term correctly represented six centuries ago. Doesn't function mean anything? We need to speak of items like says, to say, must, can, and have said as anteriors; have said can be a present- anterior or an exochronous-anterior form. A participial form like saying is contem- poraneous (or "present') with the main predication.

A modality can be formed in various ways. See L3. The most obvious way is to use an auxiliary verb, as in am eating, did eat, useta eat, would eat, hafta (have to) eat or 've gotta eat, is getting watched, go swimming, have them do it, get them to do it, etc. More marginal is the quasimodality I'd liketa (like to). To markers a long infinitive; the short infinitive is unmarkered. There are, however, many other ways to form a modality. The verb base can be augmented with an ending like -s (only in the third-person singular) or -ed or -en (as in rotten, the attributive [but not predicative] anterior participle of rot or sunken with sunk) or -ing; cf. attributive agëd with predicative ag(e)d, spilt with spilled, and xx Some modalities are formed by adding a preposition and a gerund; e.g. keep on going. A modality can be formed in English by changing the base vowel, as in sang and sung; even the consonants can be changed, as in could and might. Changing the word order differentiates It may from May it ... Modalities are combinable, as in did useta eat, got shot at, is to be discussed, was talked about, may have gotten them to do it, will be gonna get discussed, etc. See further HERE.

The reader could do worse than to read C.-J. N. Bailey, ESSAYS ON TIME-BASED LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS [Oxford University Press, 1996]; see exochronous modality in the index; and see below for instances in which it has replaced the now defunct subjunctive mode in English. For the use of MODALITY in place of alleged tenses, modes, and other categories, see the foregoing book. The details are laid out in the book cited above and in other publications by Orchid Land Publications, a few passages from which are cited below. For information directly relevant to this topic, CLICK HERE.

The reader is apprised of further useful information on
transitivity and other topics that is found on L45.

The perhaps most characteristic use of the defunct subjunctive was in purpose clauses. Today, we often hear: They're working hard so that their horse wins tat least one of the races. (Of course, the infinitive is more often used in purpose clauses; after all the infinitive is purposive!) It needs repairing in order that the lights stays on during the entire performance. They demand that the loser accepts the vote. He is making sure that the right one wins. She is going to wear that constume on condition that it is not immodest. British English is prone to prefer the "new subjunctive" (the exochronous modality) where Americans prefer should-deletion in clauses expressing volition or necessity and importance or propriety.
It would appear that the feeling for exochronous or outside-of-time expressions is not totally dead among middle-aged and younger native users of English. I do not believe that I've ever heard anything comparable with Many died of pneumonia there for Many have been dying of pneumonia there, even though the former is now quite generally being substituted for Many have died of pneumonia—used to cover a span of time from some definite or indefinite past time right up to the present. Apparently, the rejection of a plain past for an indefinite event in the past continuing up till now is not dead, as the past-anterior-progressive modality examples show. As pointed out elsewhere, anterior forms still exist in marked may have, might have, can have, could have, should have, will have, should have, ought to have, etc. Cf. They need not've done that. See the Appendix on Modal verbs below.

—Timeless or exochronous ("outside of time," including consuetudinary or gnomic) usages like My pet cat eats/has always eaten at noon. Note the contrast between timeless The child still plays with her old toys and present The child is playing with his old toys. The use of exochronous(-anterior) modality is (for obvious reasons) normal after whenever, whoever, whatever, whichever, and wherever. To call such uses presents is to betray an ignorance of what present time actually is. However is more likely to take may (plus the verb in question). Cf. Hamlet speaks to Ophelia in the preceding scene no more bespeaks a present¹ than does The first chapter of

the Bible speaks of creation or colloquial, Yesterday, Mary comes up to me and says . . . This vivid displacement or rather transplacement of the exochronous modality presentation of a past event as a quasi-present also allows (what is otherwise a real) present to be used similarly, as in When that happened, I'm thinkin' . . . Note also the special use in first-person exochronous forms in ritual sentences like "I christen this ship Loretta."

That the exochronous modality is not a "present" tense is obvious from the facts (i) that it cannot be used for a true present and (ii) that it is exempt from the time-sequencing principle that requires a past (past-anterior, past-posterior) predicate in a clause depending on a verb of speaking or thinking; cf. They knew (or /had said) that it happens all of the time. (Colloquial English may "attract" an exochronous form to the past in such a situation to yield They knew/had said that it happened all of the time.) For further information, CLICK HERE.

—Contraponent uses (i.e. of active verbs with passive import) are often exochronous. An example is heard in This book translates easily.

—Posteriors referring to scheduled or routine events like The flight
arrives at ten tonight.

—Default posterior hypothesis clauses like If it arrives late, . . .
(Click HERE for conditions more generally, particularly
gnomic and expectative hypothesis clauses.)

—Often with provided that and its many synonyms—including if.

—After verbs with posterior consequences, as in I hope it arrives
   on time (cf. I hope it will arrive on time).   Causative-desiderative
   verbs—command, require, make, insist, bring it about, persuade,
   prefer, often make sure, and other verbs introducing indirect commands.
    make up most of these uses. (Many, like force, take an infinitive [with or
   without to, as the particular verb requires].)

—infinitives (changing require that they do something to:
require them to do something).
—should, as in If it should (have) prove(d) necessary, . . .
and
(currently more North American than British) should-DELETION with expressions of volition/necessity or importance/propriety such as It was vital that they ~~should~~ not say the wrong thing. Cf. I [woul]d prefer that it ~~should~~ remain right where it is and I prefer it's remaining right where it is.
—TEMPORAL THROWBACK, notably with if (even if deleted) and a few expressions like I'd prefer:

Contrast the past event, (If) I was thinking about it. with the counterfactual non-event in If I had been thinking about it; cf. as

Cf. neutral am and was with counterfactual was/were and had been, respectively, in these examples:

Present: If it is ready now vs. If it was/were ready now, . . . and
If it (didn't) useta be ready at noon in those days.

Past: If it was ready yesterday vs. If it had been ready yesterday . . .

Neutral: Exochronous; e.g. If it happens, . . . (which is neutral, in contrast with I hope it arrives on time, which indicates a future based on a routine or schedule)

—If it has happened by then, we’ll be very surprised. (The progressive modality is less frequent by far; cf. If it’s being delivered tomorrow, . . .)

Expectative: If it’ll happen before we get there; I promise that it will happen.

—IF it will’ve happened before we get there, . . .

Concessive: If it would happen that way, . . . Non-native speakers often use would (have) in ways foreign to educated English usage. Since uneducated usage uses would with no concessive connotations, there is no problem in understanding what is said; the difficulty lies (for some hearers at least) rather in the sociological effect.

—If it would have happened that way, . . .

Dubitative (counterexpectative): If that were to happen, . . . ; If it happened like that tomorrow; or If it should (have) happened by the time we get there tomorrow. One now often hears in the contingent-conclusion clause of a conditional sentence would or, if anterior, would have in place of should and should have, respectively.

Dubitative-concessive: If it were to happen (or have happened) tomorrow, . . .

Expectative-concessive: If it’s gonna happen (or have happened) that way, . . .

In case that, provided that, supposing that, and assuming that are usually like if—whose negative form is unless.

—If can be deleted with were, could, and should, but only when these verb
forms precede the subject, as in Were they ready, Could I have done so, and
Should is so happen that . . .

Other, infrequent replacements of the old subjunctive include:
—may (with or) without reversal and might (formerly a doubtful form of may; click HERE)
e.g. They may succeed (possibility) and May they succeed (wish)
—uses of be with reversed-and-deleted may, e.g. Be it ever so humble and what is simply a frozen idiom: So be it!

A special use of be is heard in I always be myself in those situations and
in Black Vernaculaar English consuetudinary-be (whose negative is don' be).

The book published last years says that
Yesterday she says and Then I says
Says you! (generally limited to you and I)
I christen this ship (limited to I/we) (Linguists call these performatives).

An unmark(er)ed verb form in languages is found in the third-person
singular. That only the 3d sg. is markered (with "-s") in the exochronous
modality shows that is is marked and has undergone form-reversal because
of its marked status (cf. Bailey, ESSAYS ON TIME-BASED LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS [Oxford University Press, 1966], Chh. 5-6). Modal verbs are
doubly marked and hence look like ordinary unmarked verbs.

To refresh the reader's understanding of modal verbs, here they are:

Paired exochronous and dubitative-posterior forms:
can, could; may : might; will : would
Unpaired exochronous forms:
must, ought (to), shall
Unpaired dubitative-posterior form:
should (whose four uses are given elsewhere)

There are three non-posterior uses of will and would that are found in the grammar on this website; click see Appendix C. For the way in which should reverses is unreal (obligatory, dubitative) import to factual import in a marked (negative, interrogative, comparative, emphatic) context, see Appendix A.

—An example of the reversal of desiderative or non-expectative import to non-desiderative or expectative import is heard in "That it should come to this!" (in Shakespeare's Hamlet) and in "That such should be likely to occur is unthinkable."

—A frequent sort of example from the Brer Rabbit stories in Gullah vernacular is '"An 'who should'e meet but Brer Bear!"

Dare and need are transvestite modals in that, although they are normally not modals, they can be modal and expressing unreal connotations when in a marked state—i.e. when negated (say, with n(o)t, never, hardly), when interrogated, when compared, or when emphasized). Contrast "She doesn't dare/need to be present at that meeting" with "She dare/need not be present at that meeting."

In terms of reversal theory in marked contexts, the most objective proof of the modal nature of the exochronous modality is that it inverts the unmarked third-person singular form of verbs summed up in the general language principle that the third-person singular form should not be more markered than any other person-number form. The fact that exochronous speaks and seems are markered with -s and the other person-number forms are not markered exhibits a reversal of the default pattern. Even the modality-creating auxiliary verbs be, get, and have have -s in the third-person singular. One problem in analysing the get-passives is that get has senses of “become” (the inceptive form of be) and “obtain” (the causative form of have) in addition to its modal-forming uses.

English modal verbs deal with necessity (including moral necessity) and possibility. (See further details HERE.) The paired modal verbs are can : could, may : might, will : would (where the first item in each pair is exochronous and the second is posterior or dubitative,² though younger speakers reverse these values for may and might); the unpaired modal verbs are must, should, ought (to) and the rare shall. The transvestite modal verbs are need and dare—which can be modal only when in what linguists call a marked environment, say, negative, interrogative, comparative, or emphatic. Compare:

Readers not acquainted with modal logic may wish to stop here. Those who are acquainted with modal logic will recognize that the basic concepts are L (necessary) and M (possible). To these, the Hughes and Creswell System D adds:

The analysis of factual should requires additional features. Although should usually refers to a not-yet-real contingent or obligative situation or activity, it becomes factual when the semantic features of a clause (usually a that-clause, but see below) do not have plus or minus (but rather neutral x) values for the features of (cognitively) expectative or (volitionally) desiderative . . . as is evident from the reversal of obligative should to factual should in these examples . . .whose that clauses are factual:

—That she should favor that proposal surprises me. [non-expectative]
—That he should take that position doesn’t disappoint me. [expectative]
—An’ who should’e see but Brer Bear! [from Cable’s Uncle Remus stories;
   non-expectative]
—That he should reject that proposal disgusts me.    [non-desiderative]
—That it should (have) come to this! [Shakespeare’s Hamlet, non-
    desiderative]
—Why it should have turned out like this is distressing. [non-desiderative ]

—That she should take that position is comforting. [desiderative]
—It’s lucky for us that it should (have) turn(ed) out this way, not omitting should.

Note that volitional-causative verbs like require, order, or insist look to the future in a way that cognitive expressions like think, suppose, believe do not.

This creates a problem, since a command or insistence and the verb desire are certainly [+ desiderative], though in

—I desire (or command or insist) that it should be finished on time.

should is obligative (not factual) and in fact can be deleted (see on should-DELETION in the Appendix B).

To explain why verbs of commanding and insisting do not seem to cause should to reverse from from an irrealis sense (doubtfulness or deontic obligatoriness) to factual import, we have to invoke variation theory, which predicts such phenomena. In fact, should is not immune to reversal after verbs of commanding and insisting; it rather gets re-reversed in the marked context of a causative context and ends up looking un-reversed!

Consider the difference between not pleasing and not displeasing or not disgusting and that between not expected or not surprising in the following, where x is neutral between plus and minus:

—It is displeasing (or disgusting) [- desiderative] that they should have arrived early.

—It is not displeasing (or not disgusting) (both ≡ [+ desiderative]) that they should have arrived early.

—It is unexpected (or surprising) [- expectative] that they should now be taking a vacation.

—It is not unexpected (or not surprising) (both ≡ [+ expectative]) that they should now be taking a vacation.

Of course, expressions that are neutral with respect to [desiderative] and [expectative]—although (in the case of causative verbs) they may look to the future the way desideration and expectation do—do not cause should to have factual import. Consider these cognitive and volitional examples:

—I (don't) think/(don't) suppose/am unconvinced that it should (not) be in that manner.

—I (don't) insist/(don't) demand/(don't) require that it should (not) be done in that manner.

(1) SUBJECT-VERB INVERSION (in questions, and in combination with the fifth and sixth modalities following); with may, the meaning gets altered (contrast, It may win with May it win!)
     (2) The TEMPORAL THROWBACK (in counterfactual statements)
     (3) Should-DELETION (see examples in the main text and in the following Appendix)
     (4) You-DELETION in unmarked imperatives (contrast Don’tchu       imperatives)
     (5) Optative-may-DELETION
     (6) If-DELETION (in “Were they here, . . .”)
      (7) Contraponence (where an active form of a causative verb is used as a passive, as in “The door opened”)

From the online booklet, HOW GRAMMARS OF ENGLISH HAVE MISSED THE BOAT: THERE’S BEEN MORE FLUMMOXING THAN MEETS THE EYE, I repeat here:

Restrictions on the past-posterior use of could “was able to” and would “was going to” in main clauses are that could is not used when unnegated and non-interrogative. Past-posterior would is preferred to was/were going to in subordinate clauses; it is not used in main clauses.

The first two of the three non-posterior uses of will and would can be used in main clauses—all there occur in dependent clauses:

—The volitional use with the sesnse of “be willing to, insist, persist”; e.g. “Those children will/would keep on breaking that rule.”

—The characterizing use; e.g. “He’ll/would always say that when asked.”
—The assumptive use; e.g. “It’ll be there by now” and “It’ll’ve arrived by now.” Only in mind-reading quotations like “She would’ve arrived there by now”—the subordinate-clause object of an expression like “Someone mused”—is would found in the assumptive use.

(b) Factual in “We’re surprised and disgusted that he should say
a thing like that.” This follows expressions that are not neutral
with respect to expectation or desideration; i.e. they are expec-
tative or counterexpectative, or they are desired or the con-
verse.

(a) Potential (epistemic) in “They may arrive on time.”
       (b) Permissive (deontic) in “You may order dessert now.”
     (c) Optative in “May they arrive on time.”
      (d) Concessive in “. . . whoever it may be.” Formerly, a subjunc-
           tive expression (without may) was used here.

(a       (a) Permissive in “She’s letting us stay.” and “Let them in.”
           Lemme has got only this sense; only in formal styles can Let
           me have this sense.
    (b) A sense like “leave” in “Let it alone” and “Let go!”
     (c) Hortative in “Let’s go.” Let’s has got only this sense.
   (d) Jussive in “Let them render this service now.”
    (e)   Causative in “Let’em in,” “Let it take place in the town hall,”
          “Let if fly,” “He let the alarm sound,” and “It let out a howl.”
          Note that “They let him go” means “They fired him.” (Note
          the obsolete use of let meaning “disallow, forbid” in without
          let or hindrance.)
   (f) Concessive in “Let it have been that way.”

The first two form a subgroup, as do the hortative and jussive (imperative) uses; hortatives always have first-person plural subjects, while jussives always have third-person (singular or plural) subjects.

(b) Interrogatively in the first-person (sg. or pl.) to signal a suggestion or invitation, as in Shall we meet at Marie's for lunch?
________________________

¹Writers lacking a systematic mind invent absurd terms like "historical present" for what is neither historical nor (except that it exists at the time of reading)