Drowning in my own language

[Schermmeester]

Deciding that it was time to actually learn something, I have been reading the "Verbs" pages on the Dutchgrammar.com website (or rather re-reading, I have read them before but hadn't "learned"). I was surprised by a few of Bieneke's statements:

1. "Strictly speaking, we only have two tenses: The present and the past."
2. "This gives us a list of eight basic 'tenses'."
3. "The Dutch are keen users of the present tense. They even use it to refer to the future or hypothetical (conditional) sentences."
(My underlining)

The first two caused me to wonder about my own language, (English, obviously) and I was surprised to find this

on this page (https://englishstudyhere.com/grammar/16 ... n-english/) and to learn that English, apparently, has 16 "tenses" (although I've also learned that linguistically, in English, like in Dutch, only Simple Present and Simple Past (possibly Present Progressive?) are classed as "tenses", the rest being "aspects" or "moods".)

Looking at this list of examples, I am pretty sure that I frequently use all of them and perhaps also a few other "old fashioned" ones that I've learned through my study of Shakespeare; but in no sense do I know what the "Past Perfect Progressive" is, or when I should use the "Conditional Simple".

So, my dilemma is, if I don't know these things in my own language, how can I learn to use them correctly in my target language? OK, If I was living in Amsterdam, drinking in bars and playing darts with Amsterdammers, then I'm sure my grammar would improve and I would start to use the appropriate "tenses" but how, through isolated self-study, and then only through the written word, can I hope to know when to use which "tense" and, given Bieneke's 3rd statement, know when NOT to use a particular tense?

"Help! Ik verdrink! Zullen niemand mij een reddingsgordel gooieën!"
Alan

[estarling]

Grappig om te zien dat het ''present continuous'' tussendoor ''present progressive'' genoemd werd.

[WGroleau]

There’s even more to it than that, Schermeester. Since you mention “mood and aspect,” we also have subjunctive:

If I were George, I would not be so curious.

And imperative: “Play ball!”

As far as Dutch goes, you could look at descriptions of the different forms, and see what contexts they are used in texts written by native speakers. You could buy the book “201 Dutch Verbs” (or consult one of the online conjugation sites) to see what forms to look for.

[Schermmeester]

Following WGroleau's reminder of the subjunctive and imperative (Thank you! See! My grammar is sketchy at best.) I've been reading further about tenses and I think I might have found a 'floating barrel' to cling to in the shipwreck that is my understanding of my own grammar, inasmuch as I realize that "tense" refers (mainly) to the "temporal" reference of actions, namely, past, present and future. I have also remembered two further "tenses", the "Historic Present" and the "Present Future".

If I understand correctly, Present Future is used to refer NOW to events that are certain to happen in the FUTURE:

"Hurry up! The train leaves (present tense) in half an hour (time in the future)."

"I have (present tense) a meeting at 2:30 tomorrow (time in the future)."

The Historic Present uses the present tense to refer to past events; I mainly recall this being used as a stylistic literary or theatrical device to give more immediacy to a reported action or event; consider:

"I walked into town where I saw Peter, a friend of mine. I remembered that I owed Peter £10 and so I crossed the street and gave him the money".

This reported event, set in the past, can be re-written using the present tense to create the Historic Present:

"I walk into town where I see Peter, a friend of mine. I remember that I owe Peter £10 and so I cross the street and give him the money."

Used in everyday speech, this would sound very strange and artificial but as a device, it does impart a feeling of urgency or importance.

OK, so why am I talking about English Grammar on a Dutch Grammar forum? Because I think I might be able to use this to understand the more "generous" use Dutch makes of the present tense than does English. Have I got these right?

"Ik drink bier"

- Drinking is happening now.

"Ach, Ik heb zo'n kater! Gisteren, drink ik te veel bier."

- Drinking happened in the Past

"Morgen ben ik jarig en dus drink ik bier"

- Drinking will happen in the Future.

I'm not sure about this last one, can I use this "present tense" construction for a Future situation or should it be

"Morgen ben ik jarig en dus zal ik bier drinken"

[BrutallyFrank]

I find both Future Present and Historic Present a bit odd. Why would you refer to it as Future or Historic when those parts are only part of the topic but not an essential part of the grammar?

If I look at the Future Present, I see a sentence in the present tense that just refers to something in the future. The future part isn't really part of the tense it's in.

And I find the Historic Present even more odd. It's like there's a voice-over describing everything that's happening right now. A Point-Of-View report. And I don't see anything historic about that. It's as if it's a chain of events, but the odd thing about it is that parts of the sentence make up a list of small sentences:
- I walk into town (where)
- I see Peter, a friend of mine.
- I remember that I owe Peter £10 (and so)
- I cross the street (and)
- (I) give him the money.


If it works for you to understand the past and present tense Dutch grammar has to offer then I'm all for it.
You did a good job with those sentences except for one:
"Ach, Ik heb zo'n kater! Gisteren drink dronk ik te veel bier." (ik drink, ik dronk, ik heb gedronken)

Both "drink ik bier" and "zal ik bier drinken" are correct although the first one relies on the first part (morgen). You could also use the auxiliary verb 'gaan' instead of 'zullen' (zal)

[Schermmeester]

Thanks for your Input, Frank. It's always very welcome.

I'm not surprised at your puzzlement, particularly in respect of the Historic Present; in fact on reflection, I'm not even sure if it is a "tense" (although this article https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/ ... er-radio-4 suggests it is) and your analysis is very sharp, it is a "point-of-view report"; and only time you would use it is when you are recounting a series of events or perhaps telling a story or a joke.

With the Present Future, though, I think I can see a purpose although perhaps my examples were clumsy; I wonder if this will make sense?

So, we're standing on a railway platform, platform 5, say, waiting for a train to Birmingham. You look at your watch and then turn to me and say "The train should be here by now!" At that moment, we hear a Public Announcement: "The next train for Birmingham will leave from platform 12". "What!" you say. "The train leaves from platform 12! We're on the wrong platform! We must hurry!"

In this situation, while not incorrect, I feel it would be inappropriate for the Public Announcement to say "The next train for Birmingham leaves from platform 12" and for you to respond with "The train will leave from platform 12!" The announcement is an unemotional statement of fact, the train will leave from that platform regardless of any consequences to misplaced travellers; however, to you and me, that the train leaves from platform 12 has immediate consequences and so the use of the present tense delivers a feeling of immediacy.

Now that I come to think about it, my "meeting" example ("I have a meeting at 2:30 tomorrow) seems to make no sense. I'm sorry, I did say I was no grammarian.

To bring it back to Dutch grammar, am I getting anywhere near understanding by saying:
Present is present - things happening now, Ik drink, Ik spreek, Ik lees, with the addition that there are the "continuous" forms ik ben aan het drinken, Ik zit de tv aan te kijken.

Past is past - Ik dronk, Ik sprak, Ik las, Ik was aan het drinken, Ik zat de tv aan te kijken

Future is present tense with indication of time, Dinsdag, drink ik met vrienden, Gisteren middags doe Ik boodschappen, Naaste jaar, gaan wij op vakantie naar Londen
OR
Zullen plus infinitive, Ik zal met vrienden drinken (maar Ik weet niet op welke dag zullen we dat doen), Ik zal het boodschappen doen toen ik de tijd hebben.
Ik zal naar Londen gaan als ik genoeg geld hebben.
ik zal roken kwijten, maar even één latste cigarette.

Groetjes
Alan

[WGroleau]

In this situation, while not incorrect, I feel it would be inappropriate for the Public Announcement to say "The next train for Birmingham leaves from platform 12" and for you to respond with "The train will leave from platform 12!" The announcement is an unemotional statement of fact, the train will leave from that platform regardless of any consequences to misplaced travellers; however, to you and me, that the train leaves from platform 12 has immediate consequences and so the use of the present tense delivers a feeling of immediacy.

To me (US English) “train for Birmingham leaves from” merely informs us where to wait. Immediacy would be conveyed by adding a time modifier like “in two minutes” or “last call.”

However, if platform five had been announced or published previously, and it was changed to twelve, I would expect the words “will leave.” (But I would also expect a mention that it was a change.)