A Survey of Opinions about the Lack of Verb Indication on Tense from the Viewpoint of Scholars of Syntax and Principles of Jurisprudence

Abstract In this study, the lack of verb indication on tense from the viewpoint of scholars of syntax and principles of jurisprudence is investigated. Recent scholars of principles of jurisprudence deny the verb indication on tense literally. They also object the triple division of the word and believe that the verb consists of a noun and a particle, and that the word is divided into two parts: a noun and a particle. On the contrary, scholars of syntax believe that the verb indicates time, and the time is determinative for the verb. Scholars of principles of jurisprudence reject this and believe that being the determinants of time is understood from the style, syntactic and semantic symmetries, and this indication by symmetries is for the time concept not due to the nature of the verb. That is why the voice of the past and present verb indicates one of the triple times according to symmetries, and if the time was in the nature of the verb and part of it, in that case the time became the part of the nature of the verb and it was impossible to separate it for acquiring some particles like dogmatic particle and it was not allowable that the past verb is used in the present time or vice versa. This research has discussed noticeable opinions about the indication of verb or the lack of verb indication on tense in a descriptive analytical way from the viewpoint of scholars of syntax and principles of jurisprudence. In this study, the opinion on lack of verb indication on tense is accepted and the notion of verb indication on tense is rejected. Due to the attributes of the tense, subject indication on tense is accepted.