10.2. Linguistic relativity: the logic and the progressive

We would not have variables for something only virtual, just as we would not have only virtual progress. This is why we might doubt the Progressive forms with auxiliary time. Let us return to our basic pool of language information to make Modal patterns. We join the Person, Aspect, grammatical Time, Modal relativity, and auxiliary time.




To make patterns as, “If we were lazy, we would have BEEN doING something else for the past hour” (subchapter 10.1), do we need to shift our variables to the hypothetical time span, or abandon language form relativity, for the feature ING? We make the auxiliary time with the auxiliary HAVE.


Could we consider this relative, auxiliary HAVE a verb of the same capacity as with real time? In a pattern as,

“If you had eaten the cookie, you would not HAVE had it,”

if we took the HAVE in the phrase “would not HAVE (had)” for an antecedent, we would imply someone never had a cookie, and we are talking about eating it for some absolutely abstract cause.


The relative HAVE even must be an anchor to close the hypothesis time. Our time frame for a pattern as, “We must have logic”, is relative and open.
We must have logic.




For a pattern as, “We must have been logical”, the time frame will be closed.
We must have been logical.



Let us return to our picture for syntactic expansion from subchapter 8.1. The earthling basic variable.




We can expand a verb phrase as “to work on logic”.



We do not say “*will may” or “*will must”. The Modal verb form can be only PRESENT or PAST, or 1st or 2nd. We do not say “*we are maying”, “*we are mighting”, or “*we are musting”. Our relativity extent always keeps the variable {ON}.




Let us mind, the verb phrase is not everything. Our expanded phrase originally was “to work on logic”. In our minds, when we speak, we gather on the verbs as well as other speech parts we need. This is when language features would make information pools. The star is to symbolize such an information pool.


We people would make information pools whatever language we speak. In English, we often use the same word forms as nouns or verbs. It is the syntax to tell the speech part role. This even has to be that we make information pools, to manage.




We can associate information pools with information economy. In subchapter 9.3, we considered the Modal economy for interrogative forms as “Didn’t you have to…” / “Did you have to…”, rather than “*Mustn’t you have…” or “*Must you have…”




In pools, we also can think about features as transferred. The arrow is to show it. We can picture the relative, auxiliary extent as expanding from the variable {ON}, our earthling basic variable.




We can think our natural brain networks are able to carry the Progressive feature to activate it with the auxiliary rather than main time, when we decide.




All along in our journey, we do not have to stay with the same visuals for all time. We can take the elements we see with extents above, and imagine them as pooling language features.


Sometimes, a feature would exclude another. We do not say “*have mayed” or “*have musted”, for example. We have the features on opposite sides. Features also can merge, as the ING for the Perfect Progressive, or nullify one another, as our syntactic anchor HAVE. We can refer to our Modal net, in subchapter 9.2.

Have fun (!)




Feature pools would mean these have to be our persons, to decide on the language forms we make. We can learn best in exercises. Feel welcome.
10.3. Workout for real-time talk.

Link 10.3. Workout for real time talk