Among languages in which tense is marked morphologically, the most common tense systems involve a two-way distinction: either past vs. non-past or future vs. non-future.18 A three-way morphological distinction, like the Lithuanian past vs. present vs. future paradigm mentioned in Chapter 20 (and repeated here as 36) is actually somewhat unusual.
(36) Lithuanian tense marking (Chung & Timberlake 1985: 204)
a. dirb-au
work-1sg.past
‘I worked/ was working’
b. dirb-u
work-1sg.present
‘I work/ am working’
c. dirb-s-iu
work-future-1sg
‘I will work/ will be working’
However, a number of languages have verbal affixes which distinguish more than one degree of past and/or future time reference, e.g. ‘immediate past’ vs. ‘near past’ vs. ‘distant past’. Such systems are especially well-known among the Bantu languages. Example (37) presents a paradigm from the Bantu language ChiBemba, which has (in addition to the present tense, not shown here) a symmetric set of four past and four future time markers.
(37) ChiBemba (Bantu)19
a. remote past
ba-àlí-bomb-ele
‘they worked (before yesterday)’
b. removed past
ba-àlíí-bomba
‘they worked (yesterday)’
c. near past
ba-àcí-bomba
‘they worked (today)’
d. immediate past
ba-á-bomba
‘they worked (within the last 3 hours)’
e. immediate future
ba-áláá-bomba
‘they’ll work (within the next 3 hours)’
f. near future ba-léé-bomba
‘they’ll work (later today)’
g. removed future ba-kà-bomba
‘they’ll work (tomorrow)’
h. remote future
ba-ká -bomba
‘they’ll work (after tomorrow)’
A slightly less complex system is found in Grebo (Niger-Kordofanian), as illustrated in (38):
(38) Grebo (Niger-Kordofanian)20
a. remote past
ne du-da bla
‘I pounded rice (before yesterday)’
b. yesterday past
ne du-də bla
‘I pounded rice (yesterday)’
c. today (past or future)
ne du-e bla
‘I pounded/will pound rice (today)’
d. tomorrow future
ne du-a bla
‘I will pound rice (tomorrow)’
e. remote future
ne du-də2 bla
‘I will pound rice (after tomorrow)’
These systems are sometimes referred to as “metrical tense” or “graded tense” systems. However, some recent research has argued that at least in some languages, these markers indicate the location of the situation time (TSit), rather than the topic time (TT), relative to the time of speaking.21 If this is true, then these markers would not fit Klein’s definition of tense. The widely-used label Temporal Remoteness is general enough to include this type as well.
As examples (37–38) illustrate, Temporal Remoteness systems frequently make distinctions such as ‘today’ vs. ‘yesterday’, ‘yesterday’ vs. ‘before yesterday’, etc. In such systems, the “today” category is sometimes referred to as Hodiernal, and the “yesterday past” category is sometimes referred to as Hesternal, based on the Latin words for ‘today’ and ‘yesterday’. In some languages, temporal remoteness is measured in other units of time, e.g. months or years; and in some, there can be a shift in the choice of unit depending on which unit would be contextually most relevant. Some languages make other kinds of distinctions, e.g. between remembered past vs. non-remembered past.22
The ChiBemba and Grebo systems illustrated above are both symmetrical, with equal numbers of past and future categories. It is also fairly common for a language with Temporal Remoteness markers to make more distinctions in the past than in the future. Nurse (2008) reports that in his sample of 210 Bantu languages, about half have only a single future category, whereas 80% have more than one degree of past time marking.
When languages do have multiple contrastive future markers, it is not uncommon for one or more to take on secondary meanings relating to degree of certainty (remote future marking less certainty). Such secondary meanings are also associated with past time markers in some languages, with remoteness indicating reduced certainty.23
18 Chung & Timberlake (1985).
19 Chung & Timberlake (1985: 208), based on Givón (1972).
20 Frawley (1992: 365–367); based on Innes (1966).
21 Cable (2013); LaCross (2016).
22 Botne (2012).
23 Botne (2012); Nurse (2008).
