Should the following narrative look too simple to be telling the truth, let us think there is no natural language to require consult with volumes on philosophy, for correct structures. We can take a break from the volumes.


Please mind, we do not follow the term of the language acquisition device. We stay with language faculties, to refer natural language to human heads. Our devices are strictly linguistic implements or gizmos. The visuals are just to help work out flexible linguistic habits. They are not to replace language. This here is the device box.


Everyone has one PRESENT, PAST, or FUTURE really. We can have three fields or extents to symbolize this reality.


We can say figuratively that our knowledge is our light. Knowledge needs memory. Our PAST field can be as with a setting sun. We may forget the detail in matters we have not studied in a long time, yet there is shine enough to return to them.
PAST field


We cannot have memories of the FUTURE, but we are capable of planning our study. Our field for the FUTURE can be as with sunrise.
__FUTURE field


It is our PRESENT we have most cognitive powers to shape. We can symbolize the PRESENT as shiny daylight.
__PRESENT field


We view core grammar words, BE, HAVE, and DO
in the Fields of Time (Chapter 1).



In the fields of time, we may notice that the verb WILL can map on the FUTURE already in its PRESENT form (Chapter 2).
WILL mapping on the future


The River of Time is to perceive language patterns. If we focus on the Stones of Time, we may extract general patterns
(Chapter 3).


Patterns to show with Stones of Time


Our extracted patterns are the grammatical Aspect.




We can symbolize the first element in the Simple pattern with the lemniscate, that is, the indeterminate or infinity.

Infinity symbol 

The lemniscate means the first element can be any verb, we all begin learning not knowing many words, and advanced, we cannot predict which of the words we know we are going to hear or see in writing. More, natural language cannot be mathematically calculated. The idea for our language journey does not come from the Greek Anaximander, but we can compare thought.


Human grammar is not separate from human living and thinking. We can associate grammar and human natural mapping, as with geography and travel. We people live on Earth. We usually view lands or waters as extents. We give at least psychological borders to areas in which we are. We perceive routes and ways to places. We happen to be at landmarks and places. Such are human natural variables for space, in English. We can use them for grammar (Chapter 4).

__ESSENCE 3 VALUE with patterns

We begin with the values ON, IN, and TO for our mapping variables. There are not and cannot be grammar or other rules to determine how we perceive our living and thinking. We decide on our own, if to say we live somewhere, we are living somewhere, or we have lived somewhere.


We humans naturally use symbols. Humanity has had symbolic representations for feelings, thought, as well as activity. Let us think about a symbolic extent. We can use an ordinary picture of an area.



We can process the picture. The symbolic area would not belong anywhere geographically.

It would symbolize an extent.


We can visualize grammatical Aspects as extents.

Aspect Simple would allow a perspective ON a cognitive extent.





Activities IN progress are not entire extents of our cognitive grounds. We select part a cognitive extent.




We can tell what has happened TO a time or event we choose to mark. The activities would take a length of a cognitive extent.





Arrows are very familiar symbols to show or indicate the way (Chapter 5). We can combine our mapping and arrow symbols, to exercise target time. The ability will be vital, if we want to fare with Modal verbs. Modal forms might not tell directly what time the talk is about.




Please mind that our arrows are not shooting arrows. They are symbols to indicate the target time extent. If we make models to exercise and play, we make big models of soft material, especially if there should be little children around.


We never grow too old or mature, to use colors. They can help also advanced language work. We make a color palette, and combine patterns for Expression: the Affirmative, Negative, or Interrogative.




Our symbolic extents can help visualize syntax (Chapter 6).




We learn to keep the head time. Our arrows are mauve, the color of head verbs. Head verbs can head phrases, clauses, or sentences. Auxiliaries always require another verb.


Link to the color code and virtual words


We use time frames, to manage our grammatical time. We keep the frame open for the Perfect, and we close it for the Simple.

We can associate the open frame with the auxiliary HAVE. The frame is open, as there is always another reference in time, when we use the Perfect.




All along, we mind we use concepts and inventions. We do not claim there is anything like time frames or time extents in human heads. Common sense, if we can make wheels, it does not mean we have wheels in our heads.


Our grammar time extents can help manage stative uses for verbs, those for thinking and feeling (Chapter 7). It is up to our choosing, if we give our thought an entire extent (variable {ON}), or only part an extent (variable {IN}). We can refer our ideas to natural language. We might love or hate __Smiley PNGsomeone with our whole hearts as well, after all.




We merge our values TO and IN (Chapter 8).




We get another mapping value, AT, the Perfect Progressive. We also merge the Progressive and Perfect features on our Simple arrow cue.




We get to manage all Aspects with variables, as we want them.



We can integrate our River of Time




We can map and tell what we have been progressing AT.




All along, we do not change language. We take our examples from the Corpus of Contemporary American English, COCA.


This is a dream come true. And I’m loving every minute of it.

(NBC_Today Sun as in the Corpus of Contemporary American English, COCA).


We can learn to have our value {ON} for our earthling basic variable (Chapter 8.1). The value has got nothing to do with utilities and turning them on or off. Our values can work simultaneously for our grammars, as learned cognitive variables. Astronauts also have learned language ON Earth. Humans are likely to learn ON a planet for an indefinite future.




Modal verbs challenge our arrow cues, on the target time (Chapter 9). We can say Modal forms are grammatically relative, as they do not tell the time reference directly. We can compare.

__FUTURE field

TOMORROW, we COULD sit down to grammar.
We WILL BE able to sit down to grammar TOMORROW.


__PRESENT field

We COULD sit down to grammar NOW.
We ARE able to sit down to grammar NOW.


PAST field

A YEAR AGO, we COULD sit down to grammar whenever we wanted.
We WERE able to sit down to grammar whenever we wanted


We can think about a grammatically relative time, for Modal forms. Our talking with them is about hypotheses more. For a comparison, saying,

Maybe ten minutes,
is not the same as saying
Ten minutes.


Until now, our journey has associated

the auxiliary HAVE with our green, open time frame.

Real time open frame




With Modal verbs, the auxiliary HAVE will close the time of the hypothesis.


Let us see an example (Chapter 9.2).


41a. I thought the handle MIGHT HAVE / COULD HAVE broken off.

(The time frame in the hypothesis is closed.
We do not wonder any more.)

Relative time closed frame


We make relative time frames, for Modal forms.


We can note that for making theories or talking tentatively, the auxiliary HAVE closes the relative grammatical time, with Modal forms. This means it no longer brings the mapping values {TO} and {AT}.


We can recur to Aspect mapping (for example, in Chapter 8). The values {TO} and {AT} use the auxiliary HAVE for real time, and symbolize the Perfect Simple and the Perfect Progressive.


With Modal verbs, we can have
the auxiliary
HAVE for a syntactic anchor,
and not an Aspect. Let us compare.


Maybe you HAVE learned something good. {TO}
Maybe you learned something good. {ON}


A Modal form as
You might HAVE learned something good
does not tell the difference.


It yet will tell our value {IN}.


Maybe you were learning something good.
Maybe you HAVE been learning something good.

You might HAVE been learning something good.


For talking tentatively or making theories, we balance our {ON} and {IN}, building Modal phrases. Our arrow cues continue to work, and in a more economical fashion.
Modal net


We can call it our Modal net. We net (nullify as non-essential) the Perfect, for tentative forms. The length of the cognitive extent is not so important, when the time is theoretical. Our Modal phrases will become much simpler to make, and we remain correct according to classic grammars (!)


(Should we think it is too simple to be true, let us mind there is no natural language to require looking up volumes on philosophy, to make Modal structures. We all speak or write in context, and this is the context to complement the language information that grammar gives.)


However, we keep our written auxiliary HAVE always green, whether it brings an open or closed time frame. Our language faculties should do really well with a simple picture that tells auxiliary verbs from head verbs. Grammar anyway requires thinking, and it would not be a good idea to get dependent on crayons.


Link to the color code and virtual words


We learn to perceive our grammar and notional time as related (Chapter 9.4).


We can view our grammar as logically connected


We observe there is generally Form relativity, in language.
(Chapter 10).




Further journey can help learn closing the frame or leaving it open, dependent on our focus. There is no universal guidance. Of the President quotes below, neither is grammatically incorrect.


If Lincoln were alive today, he’d be (would be) turning over in his grave.
Gerald Rudolph Ford, American President.


More than that, and breaking precedent once more, I do not intend to commence any sentence with these words ― “If George Washington had been alive today”, or “If Thomas Jefferson”, or “If Alexander Hamilton”, or “If Abraham Lincoln had been alive today”…
Theodore Roosevelt, American President


The basic variable {ON} can help manage stative verb uses, as well as forms that classic grammars may name the Conditional or Unreal Past. Most importantly, the variable can help keep the real grammatical PRESENT, PAST, or FUTURE ― the head, notional time.


We do not have to keep our visuals and symbolics forever. We try some independence of them already in Chapter 10.4, with exercise 67.


Please mind, there are no two people with identical language faculties, and there is no point calculating human brains. We have a mildly humorous comment about language and mathematics in the book and here:


We humans never are artificial intelligence. We would not rely on digits 4 or 44 to make associations. We would not add up page numbers 27 and 72 to work out a correlation between making an acquaintance, looking for someone, and meeting him or her. Finally, we would not sum up digits 6 and 4 or 8 and 2 to make our cognitive maps. Computer calculation of page content could not make sense, either.


Book planning is a human capacity. In Part 2, we compare Modal forms on the westerly wind, in exercise 44 and in example 4 of another exercise, to continue the theme. We can read about Jill looking for Chantelle on page 27, and about their making acquaintance on page 72. Mapping integration comes with pages 64 and 82. Book planning can be pleasure and fun (8, 9,10). I hope you neither __Smiley joke PNGhate nor are hating me, for the innocent prank.

Read this in Polish