# Verbs: are imperfect, pluperfect and so on verb tenses? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 14, 2013, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/verbs-are-imperfect-pluperfect-and-so-on-verb-tenses/671182 "2013-10-14T03:29:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![LynnM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b2d939/32.png) [@LynnM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LynnM)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/verbs-are-imperfect-pluperfect-and-so-on-verb-tenses/671182/21 "2013-10-16T13:20:50Z")
Monty Python and the Holy Grail, John Cleese to Eric Idle: “Then you **shall not have been** mortally wounded.” What tense is this? ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/verbs-are-imperfect-pluperfect-and-so-on-verb-tenses/671182/22 "2013-10-16T14:12:58Z")
Future perfect. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/verbs-are-imperfect-pluperfect-and-so-on-verb-tenses/671182/23 "2013-10-16T14:52:32Z")
> [@LynnM](#): > > Monty Python and the Holy Grail, John Cleese to Eric Idle: > > “Then you **shall not have been** mortally wounded.” > > What tense is this? > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Future perfect. In the passive voice? I forget the exact distinction betwen shall and will offhand, but I’m sure the National Socialist Party of Grammar will provide the details. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/verbs-are-imperfect-pluperfect-and-so-on-verb-tenses/671182/24 "2013-10-16T15:00:04Z")
It’s passive voice, though. That’s where the “be” is coming from. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/verbs-are-imperfect-pluperfect-and-so-on-verb-tenses/671182/25 "2013-10-16T15:03:39Z")
Yes, but that’s not tense. (Strictly speaking, neither is the perfect aspect) There’s no difference between will and shall. Some people have attempted to create a distinction c.f. the old joke: the drowning person cries “I shall drown; no one will save me!” while the suicidal exclaims “I will drown; no one shall save me!” But this is only enforced in the most artificial and formal of settings. ---
**Author:** ![Kenm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bc79bd/32.png) [@Kenm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kenm)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/verbs-are-imperfect-pluperfect-and-so-on-verb-tenses/671182/26 "2013-10-16T15:36:32Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > There’s no difference between will and shall. Let there be light because I will it to be so. Let there be light because I shall it to be so. I will (it). I shall (it). ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/verbs-are-imperfect-pluperfect-and-so-on-verb-tenses/671182/27 "2013-10-16T15:42:02Z")
That’s will as a transitive verb and not an auxiliary. ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/verbs-are-imperfect-pluperfect-and-so-on-verb-tenses/671182/28 "2013-10-16T18:41:58Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > It’s passive voice, though. That’s where the “be” is coming from. Nitpick: the copula (“be”) is not related to passive voice. The passivity is a property of the verb (“wounded”) in that its thematic patient is the subject of the clause. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/verbs-are-imperfect-pluperfect-and-so-on-verb-tenses/671182/29 "2013-10-16T19:31:18Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > I’m under the impression that linguists feel it’s best to think of (standard) English as really having just two tenses: present and past. It has four aspects: simple, progressive, perfect, and perfect progressive. It has two voices: active and passive. And it has various moods and modalities and so on. All of which can be combined as you like. From what I remember of my linguistics classes this is correct, and applies pretty much to all the other Germanic languages as well. Romance languages, by contrast have several more tenses that are formed by inflections on the verbs themselves, rather than through the use of auxiliaries. OTOH, due to the loss of phonemic distinctions in late Latin, many of these inflections do not descend from those of Latin, but were “reconstituted” in the early Middle Ages as Latin dialects diverged into various Romance languages. At least, so says the Wiki article on [Vulgar Latin](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=16754941). Again according to a Wiki article on that language, [Afrikaans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaans_grammar#Verbs) has mostly lost the simple past tense, using only adverbial expressions and/or perfect tense constructions to convey past actions. If this is correct then we could say Afrikaans has only one tense. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/verbs-are-imperfect-pluperfect-and-so-on-verb-tenses/671182/30 "2013-10-17T14:58:18Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > So: > > simple present: “I jump.” > simple past: “I jumped.” > simple future: “I will jump.” > present progressive: “I am jumping.” > past progressive: “I was jumping.” > future progressive: “I will be jumping.” > present perfect: “I have jumped.” > past perfect: “I had jumped.” > future perfect: “I will have jumped.” > present perfect progressive: “I have been jumping.” > past perfect progressive: “I had been jumping.” > future perfect progressive: “I will have been jumping.” I was actually taught all those, but we learned it as three tenses and three aspects. > [@](#): > > Also, what about: “I am going to be jumping.” Does that have a name? And what about “I used to jump.” Is that imperfect? “Be going to” is just another way to indicate the simple future. Thus “be going to be \_\_\_ing” is future progressive. The fact that there is more than one word that works for this is one of the flaws of the three (or nine) tense system. I do not know about “used to,” but I would not be surprised if that was just simple past, despite the change of emphasis. Actually, both of these do have slight differences in use. “Used to” emphasizes the fact that what was true in the past is no longer, and “going to” carries a connotation of immediacy that is absent in “will.” But I am unaware of any system that distinguishes this sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/verbs-are-imperfect-pluperfect-and-so-on-verb-tenses/671182/31 "2013-10-17T15:23:00Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > There’s no difference between will and shall. You’re mistaken, which you’d know if you spent much time with formal specifications (for one of many examples where the distinction is important). In formal specifications for implementations of standards, “xxx shall” means that “an implementation of xxx is required to”, whereas “xxx will” means what we normally mean it to mean, that is, “xxx” happens as a matter of course. In everyday language, “shall” is rarely used, and when it is, it’s the same as “will”. But “everyday language” is not representative of all uses of English. Nor would I call the above “jargon,” as the same usage applies to things as different as computer protocol specifications and international treaties. The academic distinction between “will” and “shall” is reversed for “I”, compared to its meaning (for the implied “you” or “the implementation”) in formal specifications. That is, “You shall” is a command, “you will” is a statement of fact, whereas “I shall” is (allegedly) a statement of fact whereas “I will” is (allegedly) a command to oneself. Like most folks, I find the latter distinction pretty academic, and I agree with Inner Stickler, that when used with “I”, there is no meaningful difference. But in formal specs, which often have to be translated to multiple languages (examples are ISO and ITU documents, UN documents, etc.), the distinction between “will” and “shall” is important. Even Internet RFCs finally wised up to the ambiguity and began using uppercase for key verbs to indicate the distinctions between what an implementation is required to do and other uses. [Cite](http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt) for RFCs. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/verbs-are-imperfect-pluperfect-and-so-on-verb-tenses/671182/32 "2013-10-17T15:28:31Z")
Admittedly, the worst and most common ambiguity in specs was the use of “may not”, which could mean either “must not” or “might not”. I’m glad to be rid of those kinds of ambiguities! ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/verbs-are-imperfect-pluperfect-and-so-on-verb-tenses/671182/33 "2013-10-17T15:39:27Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > You’re mistaken, which you’d know if you spent much time with formal specifications (for one of many examples where the distinction is important). How embarrassing. Boy, is my face red. If only I had thought to add some sort of qualification. Maybe something along the lines of: > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > But this is only enforced in the most artificial and formal of settings. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/verbs-are-imperfect-pluperfect-and-so-on-verb-tenses/671182/34 "2013-10-17T16:58:07Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > How embarrassing. Boy, is my face red. If only I had thought to add some sort of qualification. Maybe something along the lines of: Yeah, but you’ll still never see a person’s Last Shall and Testament. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/verbs-are-imperfect-pluperfect-and-so-on-verb-tenses/671182/35 "2013-10-21T16:18:30Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > “Be going to” is just another way to indicate the simple future. Thus “be going to be \_\_\_ing” is future progressive. The fact that there is more than one word that works for this is one of the flaws of the three (or nine) tense system. > > I do not know about “used to,” but I would not be surprised if that was just simple past, despite the change of emphasis. > > Actually, both of these do have slight differences in use. “Used to” emphasizes the fact that what was true in the past is no longer, and “going to” carries a connotation of immediacy that is absent in “will.” But I am unaware of any system that distinguishes this sort of thing. The reason “am going to be” in particular occurred to me as I wrote that post is that it seemed like it was necessary to complete the pattern. The tense am/was/will indicates the time I’m talking about, and the aspect (progressive or perfect) indicates whether the action in question happened at the time I’m talking about or before the time I’m talking about. E.g.: “I was jumping.” (past progressive) “I had jumped.” (past perfect) Are both talking about the past, but one of those is the describing an action that was still happening in that past time, and one is describing an action that had already happened. So it seems logical that there would also be a name for a sentence that describes an action that had yet to happen in that past time, like “I was going to be jumping” or “I was about to jump.” To me that seems somehow more fundamental than a construction like “I had been jumping.” Even though I’m sure I say “had been” all the time without thinking about it, I’m not sure I can entirely articulate why you need it. But of course just because I think “going to be” _ought to_ have a name doesn’t mean that it does. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2013, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/verbs-are-imperfect-pluperfect-and-so-on-verb-tenses/671182/36 "2013-10-21T16:24:41Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Only if scrod can be the past participle of screw. After I posted this, we went’ to a restaurant whose first seafood offering was baked scrod. My wife couldn’t figure out why I was laughing until I had to blow my nose, and I couldn’t explain it in front of the kids… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/verbs-are-imperfect-pluperfect-and-so-on-verb-tenses/671182.md?page=1)