The A form and the B form

So:

What is the significance of the A and B forms of the English verbs and modals?

Our options are:

1. offer a unified temporal account (and explain away the apparent counterexamples)
2. offer an ambiguous account (and explain the significance of the forms in all the different cases)

I believe (1) is the right course. I will go partway to defending it here.

Part 1: Verbs

The unified temporal account for verbs:

• The A form of the verb always signifies present time.
• The B form of the verb always signifies past time.

Obviously anyone who defends this account must have something to say about its prima facie counterexamples.

Part 1: Verbs

Futurate Predication:

• Terry and Julie are getting married next year.
• The sun sets at 7.03 tomorrow.

• Terry and Julie were getting married next year.
• Terry and Julie were getting married next year, but there was a double booking at the church, and now it’s had to be postponed.

Part 1: Verbs

An absolutely crucial distinction between:

Time Signified by Form

and

Time About

Part 1: Verbs

Subordinate clauses (1):

• Terry and Julie are getting married next year, as long as her father does not object.

NOT: As long as her father does not object: Prearrangement: Get married next year.

BUT: Prearrangement: As long as her father does not object: Get married next year.

Part 1: Verbs

Subordinate clauses (2):

• If he stops drinking, Terry will make a fine husband for Julie.
• If he stopped drinking, Terry would make a fine husband for Julie.

This is the ‘forward time-shift phenomenon’ (Bennet, 2003), first noted by Allan Gibbard (1981). Our present question therefore has a direct bearing on the semantics of ‘if’, a hotbed of philosophical debate.

The explanation...?

Part 2: Modals

The A and B forms of the modals sometimes signify present time and past time respectively, just like verbs:

• Robert can't sleep (at the moment).
• Robert couldn't sleep (yesterday).
• (These days,) Robert will often / can sometimes, may occasionally be found in the library.
• (In those days,) Robert would often / could sometimes, might occasionally be found in the library.

Part 2: Modals

The unified temporal account for modals:

• The A form of the modal always signifies present time.
• The B form of the modal always signifies past time.

An opposing claim (the future tense hypothesis):

'Will' sometimes signifies future time, so that 'will be' (in such cases) says of the future exactly what 'is' and 'was' say of the present and past respectively.

Part 2: Modals

Does 'will' ever signify futurity? (1/2)

Motivation 1: 'will' turns up in clauses that are clearly about the future.

• It will be sunny in Paris tomorrow.
• Terry will make a fine husband for Julie.

BUT: As we have seen, time signified by form is not necessarily identical to the time a message is intuitively about.

Part 2: Modals

Does 'will' ever signify futurity? (2/2)

Motivation 2: there must be some way to say about the future what we can say about the present and the past, and the things we say about the future with 'will' look like the best candidates.

BUT: Whether we can say about the future exactly what we can say about the present and the past is a contingent matter. It is to be settled by the empirical evidence alone, not by a priori intuitions about what should or must be sayable in a language.

Part 2: Modals

The evidence:

THESIS: In reported speech, we change the words in order to preserve the objective substance of what is said. Thus:

• Robert: I am awake.
• Terry: Robert said that he was awake.

But observe:

• Robert: I will be in York tomorrow.
• Terry: Robert said that he would be in York today.

Part 2: Modals

The unified temporal hypothesis:

the A form of every English verb or modal always signifies present time

and

the B form of every English verb or modal always signifies past time