Chapter 5. Let us make own paths with time

We do not have to be born speakers of American English to think in American English. We yet always need to think in the language to speak it. If we do not “meet the boat”, we get lost in conversation and make mistakes. This means we cannot rely on translation from another language, to talk.


Cognitive mapping allows our orienting for grammatical time in American English directly, without mediation by another tongue, or even spoken or written rules.


So far, we have combined our core verbs (BE, HAVE, DO, WILL), grammatical time (PRESENT, PAST, FUTURE), and tense patterns (SIMPLE, PROGRESSIVE, PERFECT). Further, we need to be able to affirm, deny, or ask questions.


Could we view language as naturally meeting extents?
Could we think about language textures or themes?

Language skills belong with arts and can get along well with other fine arts, as painting or music.


Could we say the Present Simple comes from the meeting of two linguistic scopes, the Present and the Simple? Similarly, could we say the Past Progressive comes from the meeting of the Past and the Progressive language extents? The Future Perfect could come from the meeting of the Future and the Perfect.


We know we do not have to ascribe a strict ordering to our concepts. We have envisioned Time and Aspect as a dynamic theme.


TIME and ASPECT dynamic theme

(Please compare the practice in Subchapter 3.4).


Let us mind that our grammar is not about telling what there is or what there is not in human heads. If we can make a wheel, it does not mean we have wheels in our heads. More, we do not have to seek universal logic, for good language skill. Feel welcome to read,



We can think about our language logic as concepts that we form, consciously and individually. Matters PAST to some people may be matters PRESENT or FUTURE to other humans.


How many extents could we work in language? We have been concerned with two such language capacities so far. One can convey the Aspect, Simple, Progressive, or Perfect.



We can have another extent for grammatical Time, the PRESENT, PAST, or FUTURE.




We need one more logical quality in our picture, to make language textures that can work.


When we speak or write, we can affirm, negate, or ask a question. Grammars name these ways to speak the Affirmative, Negative, and Interrogative. Together, the Affirmative, Negative, and Interrogative can make our third logical capability, Expression. We also may join the Negative and Interrogative into the Negative Interrogative. Appendix 4 shows it. We can set our third logical effect in the foreground of our picture.




We do not have to associate logic with artificial intelligence. No computer could start up on our infinity. These are human logical capabilities we use for language, also when we joke. The meaning of what we say may depend on whether we affirm, deny, or ask a question.


To exercise, we can use another virtual word. It can be phimo. Link to the color code and virtual words


Our phimo (fimo) may mean nothing particular, just “something”. It can be a nominal, that is, it can behave like a noun. A noun can answer the question “What thing?”


We are within the PRESENT time compass now.

__PRESENT field

Simple: Phimo bimoes.
Progressive: Phimo is bimoing.
Perfect: Phimo has bimoed.


We are remaining in our PRESENT time extent, for the Interrogative.

Simple: Does phimo bimo?
Progressive: Is phimo bimoing?
Perfect: Has phimo bimoed?


We  also can deny, in the PRESENT time extent.

Simple: Phimo does not bimo.
Progressive: Phimo is not bimoing.
Perfect: Phimo has not bimoed.


We often abbreviate our patterns, in everyday speech.


Simple: Phimo doesn’t bimo.
Progressive: Phimo isn’t bimoing.
Perfect: Phimo hasn’t bimoed.


We can merge the Interrogative and Negative extents. We happen to ask negative questions. We could ask, “Isn’t phimo bimoing?” (We suppose that phimo is bimoing).


Simple: Doesn’t phimo bimo?
Progressive: Isn’t phimo bimoing?
Perfect: Hasn’t phimo bimoed?


Let us compare formal American English, as for school. Formal syntax does not follow abbreviated auxiliaries.


Simple: Does phimo not bimo?
Progressive: Is phimo not bimoing?
Perfect: Has phimo not bimoed?



Let us make observations. American English (same as any English) is an SVO (SUBJECT―VERB―OBJECT) language. To affirm, we put our words together beginning with the subject and following with the verb, which we may complement with an object.


Our (phimo) can be our virtual subject. Let us say it means just “something”. Our (bimo) can be our virtual verb. It can mean “doing something”. We can imagine bouncing a ball as well as flying a kite. Our reemo can be our virtual object, just “another something”, a ball or a kite. Kids can make forms as Phimo bimoes reemo for practice as well as for fun.


In our logical potential for asking questions, the elements move. The moving elements are the auxiliary and the subject. Grammars name it inversion.

Phimo is bimoing.
Is phimo bimoing?


Let us see an example with a real verbal and a real nominal. Verbals can be single verbs or verb phrases, as in tense patterns. Nominals can be nouns or noun phrases. For example,

word forms as to play, to be playing, is playing, or having played are verbals;

word forms as a game, a card game, or the game of the Ziggurat are nominals.
(We can learn the game in Part 4).


Head verbs can head verb phrases. When we ask questions, auxiliaries move to places before subjects. Dependent on the grammar approach, we may view the word order as VSO then, or think about the subject as wrapped up in the verb phrase and SVO, still: “be playing” remains the phrase, and the verb “to playits head. The auxiliary alone could not bring linguistic meaning. Our mauve head verb does not move.


You are playing.


Are you playing?


Our Simple character shows it can have an auxiliary, too. The auxiliary is the verb to do. It takes (E)S for the third person singular (he, she, or it). We might say there is a natural interaction between the feature ‒ES and the auxiliary do. Let us see how our language chemistry could work for questions.


Phimo bimoES.
DoES phimo bimo?


The linguistic chemistry is not limited to questions. We can have word movement generally for a highlight. We may compare Exercise 14, in Subchapter 4.1. The auxiliary takes the feature and goes before a nominal, or after a pronoun.

The orchard has a little nut tree.
A little nut tree, does the orchard have.
A little nut tree, it does have.


We can compare formal American English, for the negative interrogative. Here, the matter is not in formal or colloquial styles. We could say that language has pronouns for shorter nouns.


Forms as here are emphatic. The Simple Aspect also allows saying,
Do read this all, please.


The word “chemistry” can mean a natural interaction. Our language chemistry makes the feature for the third person singular, –(E)S, move from the head verb to the auxiliary. Our logical capacity for denying has the negative element not. This element also becomes attracted to the auxiliary. In the Simple Aspect, it is the auxiliary do.


The Affirmative: Phimo bimoes.
The Interrogative: DoES phimo bimo?
The Negative: Phimo doES not bimo.
The Negative Interrogative: DoES phimo not bimo?


In everyday language, the attraction can be strong enough to make the forms abbreviated.


The Negative short form: Phimo doESN’T bimo.
The Negative Interrogative short form: DoESN’T phimo bimo?


What happens if we change our PRESENT time compass to the FUTURE time extent? Our Expression retains all qualities. Naturally, we do not need to believe in clairvoyance. We keep thinking about grammatical time.


__FUTURE field

Simple: Phimo will bimo.
Progressive: Phimo will be bimoing.
Perfect: Phimo will have bimoed.


The logic for the FUTURE can bring the auxiliary WILL into our scopes. Our important verb to be stays to its basic form (be). Let us remember that auxiliaries belong with the framework or structure of language. They help map time for the language matter (Chapter 4.1, Exercise 14).


Simple: Will phimo bimo?
Progressive: Will phimo be bimoing?
Perfect: Will phimo have bimoed?


It is the auxiliary WILL to attract the element not, for the Negative.


Simple: Phimo will not bimo.
Progressive: Phimo will not be bimoing.
Perfect: Phimo will not have bimoed.


The phrase will not becomes won’t, in everyday American.

Simple: Phimo won’t bimo.
Progressive: Phimo won’t be bimoing.
Perfect: Phimo won’t have bimoed.


Again, formal American English will not follow the abbreviation.



Simple: Will phimo not bimo?
Progressive: Will phimo not be bimoing?
Perfect: Will phimo not have bimoed?


Feel welcome to Appendix 4, as well as a summary on our language journey and observations, in Subchapter 5.1.


__Smiley PNG
Link to chapter 5.1. Visuals for logic and expression



Feel welcome to comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s