The tenseless modals verbs of English

JTT: There has been, and not just a little, concern expressed here over why one modal form doesn't fit as well as another modal form. So this below, from a posting quite far back in this thread, sought to help straighten this out.

Let's try again.

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

Situation: The boss and some workers want to go over a report but the report is not in the office. One of the team has gone home. Marnie suggests the following. Which ones [from 1-4]would work and which wouldn't, ie. what can Marnie say in this situation?

1. Joe might have it.

2. Joe may have it.

3. Joe can have it.

4. Joe could have it.

CJ:
1. He was crazy to climb up into that tree. He [might / *may] have fallen and broken his neck!

This is what I say if I know he did not fall. If I already know he did not fall, the acquisition of that knowledge must have happened in the past.


JTT: I have to ask for the reasons you exclude 'may' in sentence 1. Tendencies to choose one form over another are not very good proof that a form is past or present tense. When one encounters such contradictions, it might be wise to consider that there are other reasons, possibly semantic/pragmatic differences.

Also, note that purported past tense 'might' just can't do it without 'have + PP', ie.

1a. *He was crazy to climb up into that tree. He might fall and break his neck! *

Why is this, when you state that it's a past tense?

============================================
CJ:
2. "He may have fallen and broken his neck"

can only be used to mean something entirely different. In the following, no such acquisition of knowledge took place before the utterance of these sentences. It's pure speculation in the present.

He's all bandaged up and wearing a neck brace. He [may / might] have fallen and broken his neck.

JTT: "in the present", Jim? What is "in the present" and why is it "in the present"? Isn't sentence 1 also "in the present".


CJ:
This is evidence for my point that the "past forms" of the modals can be 'borrowed' into the present point of view, but the "present forms" of the modals cannot be 'borrowed' into the past point of view.

JTT: That seems illogical on its face. I think you're going to have to revise your point rather drastically, Jim. How about the following?

a. You will have already read this.
---------------------------------
b. [link]

Chapter 1.04 GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 1.04.210 Shall have been, defined.
The words "shall have been" include past and future cases.
-----------
Or this from Abraham Lincoln;

c. The Emancipation Proclamation

The persons excepted from the benefits of the foregoing provisions are all who are, or shall have been, civil or diplomatic officers or agents of the so-called Confederate government;
----------------
d. as you call any story that is invented; for whatever I shall tell you I shall have seen with my own eyes or heard with my own ears ...
-----------------------
e. You will have heard that the grand old man of football Brian ...
----------------------
f. [stick in any past will/shall structure you choose and Google will give you hundreds of examples of 'will' and 'shall' operating in the past.

I answered this once before.

The answer is: They were all [worried / convinced / sure] that Joe [*can / could / *may / might / *will / would] have it. JT, I think all you're trying to say is that the tense of "might" and "should" is Present Tense when these are used in a main clause. That's it!

However, to be more exact, the prototypical modal for the meaning "it is possible that" is "may". Frequent substitutes are "might" and "could". So, presuming Marnie wants to say that she thinks it is possible that Joe has the report, "Joe [may / might / *can / could] have it". ("can" would suggest that Marnie gives Joe permission to have the report, which is not the meaning you are focusing on, so I'll leave that one out, even though it's a permissible combination under other circumstances.)

As I said before, I don't see the relevance of this exercise for showing that modals "have no tense". It seems to me that whichever of the four choices you select you're dealing with a present tense sentence. "might" and "could", as I said elsewhere, are 'borrowed' into the present point of view in this type of case, i.e., a main clause.

CJ

All three of your examples are within the present point of view -- perfect aspect doesn't change that, although the first is complicated by a secondary future viewpoint, being a past of a future of the present point of view.

The following are all "present point of view" statements:

He has done that. He has been doing that. He does that. He is doing that. He will do that.

"present point of view" does not mean present tense.

Can I have a lot of money if I work hard