Germanic languages tend to have two morphologically distinct simple forms, for past and non-past, as well as a compound construction for the past or for the perfect, and they use modal auxiliary verbs. The simple forms, the first part of the non-modal compound form, and possibly the modal auxiliaries, are usually conjugated for person and/or number. A subjunctive mood form is sometimes present. English also has a compound construction for continuous aspect. Unlike some Indo-European languages such as the Romance and Slavic languages, Germanic languages have no perfective/imperfective dichotomy.
Danish Danish has the usual Germanic simple past and non-past tense forms and the compound construction using "to have" (or for intransitive verbs of motion, "to be"), the compound construction indicating past tense rather than perfect aspect. Futurity is usually expressed with the simple non-past form, but the auxiliary modals ("want") and ("must"—obligation) are sometimes used (see Future tense#Danish). Other modals include ("can"), ("may"—permission), ("must"), and ("may—permission). Progressivity can be expressed periphrastically as in: The subjunctive mood form has disappeared except for a few stock phrases.
Dutch The simple non-past form can convey the progressive, which can also be expressed by the infinitive preceded by "lie", "walk, run", "stand", or "sit" plus . The compound "have" (or "be" before intransitive verbs of motion toward a specific destination) plus past participle is synonymous with, and more frequently used than, the simple past form, which is used especially for narrating a past sequence of events. The past perfect construction is analogous to that in English. Futurity is often expressed with the simple non-past form, but can also be expressed using the infinitive preceded by the conjugated present tense of ; the latter form can also be used for probabilistic modality in the present. Futurity can also be expressed with "go" plus the infinitive: The future perfect tense/aspect combination is formed by conjugated + ("to have") (or ("to be")) + past participle: ("They will have gone to Breda"). The conditional mood construction uses the conjugated past tense of : The past tense/conditional mood combination is formed using the auxiliary "to have" or "to be": In contemporary use the
subjunctive form is mostly, but not completely, confined to set phrases and semi-fixed expressions, though in older Dutch texts the use of the subjunctive form can be encountered frequently. There are various conjugated modal auxiliaries: "to be able", "to have to", "to be possible" or "to have permission", "to want to", "to allow" or "to cause". Unlike in English, these modals can be combined with the future tense form:
Icelandic As with other Germanic languages, Icelandic has two simple verb forms: past and non-past. Compound constructions that look to the past from a given time perspective use conjugated "to have" (or "to be" for intransitive verbs of motion) plus past participle. In each voice there are forms for the indicative mood and the subjunctive mood for each of the simple past, the simple non-past, the perfect, the past perfect, the future, and the future perfect, and there are a non-past conditional mood form and a past conditional mood form, as well as an imperative mood. The perfect form is used for a past event with reference to the present or stretching to the present, or for a past event about which there is doubt, so the perfect form represents aspect or modality and not tense. The future tense form is seldom used. The non-past subjunctive form expresses a wish or command; the past subjunctive form expresses possibility. The indicative mood form is used in both clauses of "if [possible situation]...then..." sentences, although "if" can be replaced by the use of the subjunctive mood form. The subjunctive form is used in both clauses of "if [imaginary situation]...then..." sentences, and is often used in subordinate clauses. There are various modal auxiliary verbs. There is a progressive construction using "to be" which is used only for abstract concepts like "learn" and not for activities like "sit": "I am [at] learning".
English The English language allows a wide variety of expressions of combinations of tense, aspect, and mood, with a variety of grammatical constructions. These constructions involve pure
morphological changes (suffixes and internal sound changes of the verb), conjugated
compound verbs, and invariant auxiliaries. For English from the perspective of modality, see Palmer; for English from the perspective of tense, see Comrie for English from the perspective of aspect, see Comrie. :The
am/is/are + verb +
ing construction is negated by inserting
not between the two words of the affirmative (
am/is/are not taking). • The above two forms can be combined, to indicate a present or past view of a prior (or prior and current) event that occurred with stative or progressive aspect ("I have/had been feeling well," "I have/had been taking classes"); here the construction is "have/has/had" + "been" + main verb + -"ing". There is a subtle difference in usage between the case where the viewpoint is from the present and the case where it is from a point in the past:
have been taking classes implies that the action is not only of present relevance but is continuing to occur; in contrast,
had been taking classes indicates relevance at the reference time, and allows but does not require the action to still be occurring (
I had been taking classes but was not still doing so;
I had been taking classes and still was). :This combined form is negated by inserting
not after
have/has/had (
I have not been taking classes). Both of these morphological changes can be combined with the compound verbal constructions given below involving invariant auxiliaries, to form verb phrases such as
will have been taking.
Invariant auxiliaries Aside from the above-mentioned auxiliary verbs, English has fourteen invariant auxiliaries (often called
modal verbs), which are used before the morphologically unmarked verb to indicate mood, aspect, tense, or some combination thereof. Some of these have more than one modal interpretation, the choice between which must be based on context; in these cases, the equivalent past tense construction may apply to one but not the other of the modal interpretations. For more details see
English modal verbs. •
used to indicates both past tense and habitual aspect ("I used to run every day.") or occasionally stative aspect ("The sun used to shine more brightly"). It cannot be used with the very recent past (*
I used to run every day last week is not acceptable, but
I used to run every day last summer is acceptable though usually no lexical time marker like
last summer is included). The form that negates the main verb is
used not to + verb (or
used to not + verb); the form that negates habituality is
did not use to + verb. •
would has three alternative uses: :*past tense combined with habitual aspect ("Last summer I would run every day.") :*conditional mood for a present or future action (
If I could, I would do it now / next week). In the first person, intentional modality may also be present. :*past tense, prospective aspect for an action occurring after the past-tense viewpoint ("After I graduated in 1990, I would work in industry for the next ten years.") :The negative form
would not + verb negates the main verb, but in the conditional and intentional mood in the first person the intentional modality may also be negated to indicate negative intention. •
will has a number of different uses involving tense, aspect, and modality: :*It can express aspect alone, without implying futurity: In "He will make mistakes, won't he?", the reference is to a tendency in the past, present, and future and as such expresses habitual aspect. :*It can express either of two types of modality alone, again without implying futurity: In "That will be John at the door", there is an implication of present time and probabilistic mode, while "You will do it right now" implies obligatory mode. :*It can express both intentional modality and futurity, as in "I will do it." :*It can express futurity without modality: "The sun will die in a few billion years." :As with
would, the negative form
will not negates the main verb but in the intentional mode may also indicate negative intentionality. :In each case the time of viewpoint can be placed in the past by replacing
will with
would. •
shall indicates futurity or intention in the first person (
I shall go); for the other persons, it indicates obligation, often negative as in
you shall not lie, but this usage is old-fashioned. •
must can be used either for near-certainty mode (
He must understand it by now) or for obligatory mode (
You must do that). The past tense form
must have understood applies only to the near-certainty mode; expressing obligation in the past requires the lexical construction
had to + verb. •
had better and
had best both indicate obligatory mode (
He had better do that soon). Often
had is omitted (
He best be gone soon). There is no corresponding past tense form. •
should has several uses: :*present or future tense combined with possibility mode:
If he should be here already, ...;
If he should arrive tomorrow, ... :*mild obligatory mode in the present or future tense:
He should do that now / next week. The past tense can be substituted by using the form
He should have done that, with a morphological change to the main verb. :*probabilistic mode in the present or future tense:
This approach should work. The corresponding past tense form
should have worked implies impersonal obligation rather than probability. •
ought to + verb can mean the same thing as either of the last two mentioned uses of
should: mild obligatory mode in present or future (
He ought to do that now / next week) or probabilistic mode in the present or future (
This approach ought to work). The past tense form
ought to have done that,
ought to have worked, with a morphological change to the main verb, conveys the same information as the corresponding
should have form in both cases. •
may can indicate either the mode of possibility or that of permission: :*possibility in the present or future:
He may be there already,
He may arrive tomorrow. The form "He may have arrived," with a morphological change to the main verb, indicates not just the mode of possibility but also the aspectual feature of viewing a past event from a present viewpoint. This form applies only to this possibility usage. :*permission in the present or future:
You may go now / next week. There is no corresponding way to indicate the presence of permission in the past. •
can has several uses: :* present ability:
I can swim. The past tense is expressed by
I could swim. :*present permission (in informal speech):
You can go now. In the past tense one can use
could (''When I was a child, according to my parents' rules I could swim once a week''). :* present moderate probability (seldom used):
That can be true. There is no past form, since the more common
that could be true conveys the same (present) tense. •
might conveys slight likelihood in the present or future (
He might be there already,
he might arrive tomorrow). It can also convey slight advisability (
You might try that). The past can be substituted using the form
might have + morphologically altered main verb. •
could is used in several ways: :*mild permission or advisability in the present:
You could do that. The equivalent past form is
could have + morphologically altered main verb (
you could have done that). :*permission in the past:
She said I could graduate in one more year. :*ability in the past:
I could swim when I was five years old. :*slight probability in the present:
That could be Mary at the door. The past tense equivalent is
That could have been Mary at the door yesterday, with a morphologically altered main verb. :*conditional ability:
I could do that if I knew how to swim. In the past one can say
I could have done that if I had known how to swim. :*slight intention in the present:
I could do that for you (and maybe I will). There is no past equivalent. •
need:
Need can be used as a present tense modal auxiliary, indicating necessity, that is invariant for person/number in questions and negatives only:
Need he go?,
He need not go. The corresponding past tense constructions are
Need he have gone?,
He need not have gone. •
dare:
Dare can be used as a present tense modal auxiliary that is invariant for person/number in questions and negatives only:
Dare he go?,
He dare not go. ==Basque==