Documentation

Linglib.Fragments.English.Tense

English Tense Fragment (@cite{cumming-2026} + @cite{lakoff-1970}) #

@cite{cumming-2026} @cite{lakoff-1970} @cite{heim-kratzer-1998}

Paradigm entries for English tense forms from @cite{cumming-2026}, Tables 20 and 22. Each entry specifies evidential perspective (EP) and utterance perspective (UP) constraints via EPCondition and UPCondition enums.

Cumming Entries #

FormEP constraintUP constraintNonfuture?
simple pastT ≤ AT < Syes
present progT ≤ AT = Syes
future (will)(none)S < Tno
will have V-edA < TS < Tno
will now be V-ingA < TT = Sno
will (bare)(none)S < Tno

Lakoff Perspective Entries (§4) #

TensePerspectiveEntry extends TAMEEntry with the morphological form type (synthetic vs periphrastic) and grammatical tense, connecting Cumming's evidential constraints to Lakoff's false-tense diagnostic.

English present progressive: T ≤ A (downstream), T = S (present).

Equations
Instances For

    English "will now be V-ing": A < T (prospective), T = S (present).

    Equations
    Instances For

      All English tense paradigm entries.

      Equations
      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
      Instances For

        A tense paradigm entry enriched with Lakoff's perspective dimensions: grammatical tense and morphological form type (synthetic vs periphrastic).

        allowsFalseTense is derived: only synthetic forms permit false tense.

        Instances For

          Does this form allow false-tense interpretations? Derived from formType: only synthetic forms can.

          Equations
          Instances For

            English simple past with perspective: synthetic, allows false past.

            Equations
            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
            Instances For

              English simple present with perspective: synthetic, allows false uses.

              Equations
              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
              Instances For

                English periphrastic past "used to V": cannot express false past.

                Equations
                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                Instances For

                  English periphrastic future "going to V": cannot express false future.

                  Equations
                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                  Instances For

                    Periphrastic entries block false tense.

                    English simple past: Kratzer decomposition. Surface "V-ed" = PRESENT tense + PERFECT aspect. The tense head is present (indexical), so the form can be used deictically ("out of the blue").

                    Equations
                    Instances For

                      English present perfect: no decomposition mismatch. Surface "have V-ed" = PRESENT tense + PERFECT aspect. Identical underlying structure to simple past — the difference is that the present perfect is morphologically transparent.

                      Equations
                      Instances For

                        English simple past can be deictic (from decomposition).

                        The underlying tense head is PRESENT, not PAST. Pastness comes from the PERF aspect head, not the tense.

                        Simple past and present perfect share the same underlying decomposition: both are PRESENT + PERFECT. The difference is that simple past fuses the two morphemes while present perfect makes the PERF transparent via auxiliary "have".

                        The Lakoff gramTense =.past records the surface morphology; the Kratzer constraint =.present records the underlying tense head. These are DIFFERENT for English simple past — that's Kratzer's point.