I feel like I'm missing a nuance here, because I don't understand the doubt as to whether future tense exists. I'm going to write a few sample sentences in past, present, and future tense, and see if anyone disagrees that that's the tense: Past: She got the cucumbers, lettuce, and onions out of the refrigerator. She sliced the cucumbers, washed the lettuce, and sliced the onions into thin rings. Present: She gets the cucumbers, lettuce, and onions out of the refrigerator. She slices the cucumbers, washes the lettuce, and slices the onions into thin rings. Future: She will get the cucumbers, lettuce, and onions out of the refrigerator. She will slice the cucumbers, wash the lettuce, and slice the onions into thin rings. Yes? Of course, this leaves out things like continous tenses (was getting, is getting, will be getting) and no doubt plenty of others. But does anyone disagree with the above?
I'm not denying that that is generally regarded as future tense, I just don't personally accept it as a separate tense at all. The future is unknown, all you can do is stand in the present (or past) and presuppose. I read the above text as present tense, because tomorrow is today's tomorrow and the writer is therefore writing today. There's a reason entire books aren't written in 'future tense', it doesn't really exist. Or that's my opinion anyway.
@AlannaHart Books aren't written in future tense because there's no tension. The future doesn't exist, in that it can change, so there's no tension. But you could also say the past doesn't exist. It's gone. It needs to be called something and future tense is a lot shorter than presupposition of a future scenario. I think it would be present tense if we are in the character's POV. I agree that future tense isn't the best choice of wording as you will likely only write a short bit of information. I look at John. He will die tomorrow. That's present tense. John will die tomorrow. Is the hybrid future tense. Or an assumptive tense? Assumptive would indicate that it's future based, and not set in concrete while also taking into account that we are seeing it from the present moment.
You're not telling me anything I don't know. Yeah, assumptive tense would probably be a better name for it, but people insist on 'future tense' anyway and I just don't agree.
'assumptive' indicates intent, while 'future' only refers to place in time... they're not really interchangeable, nor is the former a sense-making substitute for the latter...
Sorry @mammamaia but I don't agree. Assumptive simply refers to the intent to see the future unravelling on a particular path. Assumptions can be forwards, backwards and side ways. In the sense I can assume how the future will be, I can assume I know something about the past and I can assume things that aren't time-specific such as That man in the trenchcoat is up to no good.
Assumptive indicates assuming, which is what you're doing when you make statements about the future. Calling it future tense when the future is ever uncertain isn't sense-making if you ask me, but I don't fancy arguing about this. I was only giving an opinion, one which I have come to after a lot of thought and experience. There's really no use trying to persuade me otherwise, but if you want to persuade the OP, go ahead.
