The tenseless modals verbs of English

1. A report of the identical situation can be made with quotations [direct report]. How can a direct report be about a future action but an indirect report be about a past action?

1. I may learn Japanese.
2. I said I might learn Japanese.
3. I said: 'I may learn Japanese'.

#1: Today, Tuesday, I express the possibility of learning Japanese. The possibility starts now. It therefore starts in the present.

#2: On Wednesday, I tell CJ what I said on Tuesday. The possibility started yesterday. It therefore started in the past.

On Thursday, Casi says, I hear you've told CJ you're planning to learn Chinese. To which I reply: #3.

With #3, 'I said' situates the saying in the past, where the possibility started. But 'I may' is a piece of Tuesday, preserved in speech marks. It is therefore present, because that's what it was on Tuesday.

MrP

#2: On Wednesday, I tell CJ what I said on Tuesday. The possibility started yesterday. It therefore started in the past.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Two major problems with your theory, Mr P.

1. "The possibility started yesterday. It therefore started in the past."

And what it started with was a "may" designating a small to a good chance that Mr P will study Japanese. How it's subsequently reported makes no difference. The intent WAS and still is a "may".

2. "The possibility started yesterday. It therefore started in the past."

But it has not come to fruition. It can have no past tense because nothing has past, ie. nothing has finished. Opinions don't have pasts because they are only opinions. The only things that can be past are actual results flowing from an expressed opinon or not flowing from an expressed opinion; Mr P is studying Japanese OR Mr P is not studying Japanese.
[the consideration re: studying has come to or not come to fruition]

You are still seriously confused or you are being wantonly obtuse in your misguided attempts to defend sad old prescriptions. You can find no defence for your position in either the language or in knowledgeable language sources.

The number of prescriptive sources you've supplied to defend your points illustrates just how devoid they are of anything substantive. You haven't even collected examples from PG sources, because like the Commnet site, it would show how badly it has been described. This stands as yet another fine example of how badly prescriptive grammar has gotten it wrong.


Now shall/should. The connection between these two modals has widened even more so than for may/might. They share only the most tenuous connections, mostly for things like old legal
documents, etc.

, like the other modals is never used as a past tense without 'have +PP'. Same for ; it needs 'have + PP' to operate in the past. It's really misleading to describe verbs which freely move through all tenses as past & present tense. Clearly they are tenseless. They carry modal meaning.

JTT: "The possibility started yesterday. It therefore started in the past." But it has not come to fruition. It can have no past tense because nothing has past, ie. nothing has finished.

How curious. A possibility has no past? Maybe I misremembered the conversation with Casi:

Casi: I hear you told CJ you're planning to learn Chinese.
MrP: I said that I might learn Japanese. But now I've switched to Ashanti.

The possibility is now firmly in the past. It's over. It existed between Tuesday morning and Wednesday evening. In fact, I remember it vividly. And if you can remember something – it's in the past.

If feelings and opinions didn't have pasts, how would we remember what we thought last week? And if possibilities didn't exist, why would we need modal verbs to express them?

---

As for this:

You are still seriously confused or you are being wantonly obtuse in your misguided attempts to defend sad old prescriptions. You can find no defence for your position in either the language or in knowledgeable language sources. The number of prescriptive sources you've supplied to defend your points illustrates just how devoid they are of anything substantive.

Why would I need books to tell me how to speak?

MrP

I'm sure you're right, JT.

But why not answer the questions I've put to you?

MrP