The tenseless modals verbs of English

Now I am troubled, JT. As I see it, your method proves that the present tense of ordinary verbs is also tenseless.

If this is the case, we are no longer justified in treating modal verbs as exceptions. We may legitimately proceed with a discussion of the general rule.

MrP

If Lyons is right...and tense is modality...we can then redefine modal verbs as – verbs with tenses?

That would be rather radical.

What do you think, JT?

MrP

Talk about Theologians splitting hairs. Enjoying yourself JTT?

Supposing for the sake of argument that "can", "would", "might", "may", "will", "should", "could", ... are all tenseless, what then do we call the relationship between "can" and "could", between "will" and "would", if we think there is any whatsoever?

Because of the opening supposition, we cannot say that the relationship is one of tense.

But we can say that there is NO relationship whatsoever, that "can" and "could" are as different as "consider" and "name", i.e., just another word in the same general category:

I considered him clever.
They named him leader.

Or as different as "frog" and "sun".

I watched the frog jump.
I watched the sun rise.

Supposing we also reject the idea that there is NO relationship. Suppose we say that surely the following pairs show a relationship between "will" and "would", for example, which is a closer relationship that that which obtains between "frog" and "sun".

Will you fix my TV if I pay you?
Would you fix my TV if I paid you?

I'm saying I'll do it.
I was saying I'd do it.

I think I will drop in and see her.
I thought I would drop in and see her.

Suppose we say that the relationship just shown above is a closer one than obtains between "will" and "could", for example. That is, we agree that while "can", "would", "may" ... are all tenseless (first supposition above), the relationship between "will" and "would" is a closer relationship than that between "will" and "could", or between "will" and "may", etc.

Further suppose that we regard the fact that "will" and "would" both begin with the same letter ("w") and the fact that "can" and "could" and that "shall" and "should", etc. begin with the same letter absolutely irrelevant to the relationship. In other words, we decide to reject the initial letter of these words as trivial in the relationship. We decide that the relationship we seek is something deeper than that, something to do with the meanings, not the appearance of the words orthographically.

To summarize, we have agreed that the relationship we want to describe between "can" and "could", "shall" and "should", etc. is not one of tense, and not one of orthography, but that there IS some relationship there to be described, that these 'modals' do not form a set of totally independent unrelated words.

What then is the proper description of the relationship that exists for pairs like those already cited above for "will" and "would" and like those shown below?

Tom can easily run ten miles these days.
Tom could easily run ten miles in those days.
?Tom could easily run ten miles these days.
*Tom can easily run ten miles in those days.

As time passes, one fact is becoming obvious. He will always be like that. Unfortunely, he will never walk again.
As time passed, one fact became obvious. He would always be like that. Unfortunately, he would never walk again.

Recall that by supposition we have agreed that the relationship between "can" and "could" is not one of tense. Likewise for "will" and "would", because none of these words are tensed.

So what is the proper description of the relationship shown?

JT,

Yes, it's obvious that the relationship we're talking about is stronger for "can" / "could" and "will" / "would". But what I'm asking for is the word, the term, the terminology which describes this relationship -- supposing, in agreement with you, that "tense" is NOT the proper term for describing this relationship.

CJ