http://www.englishforums.com/English/LinguisticsDiscussionForum/Forum35.htmGet into the nitty-gritty of the language.enXMOD (Build: 3715.30106)http://www.englishforums.com/English/MoreOnModals/bbxmg/post.htm#94266Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:37:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:94266CalifJim0http://www.englishforums.com/English/MoreOnModals/bbxmg/post.htm#94266http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-94266.xmlYes, the "example copied below" in your post is part of the (estimated) 1%. Here the modalities are thrown into the past, not the residues. In the case of "You shouldn't have climbed that tree", unlike in the '99%' cases, the meaning is "It WAS not advisable to do this: You climb that tree." The advisability of "should" has past. The sentence doesn't mean "It IS not advisable to do this: You climbeD that tree." So in this case the "have" throws the modality into the past, not the residue. Likewise, on the relevant reading, "You might have fallen" doesn't mean "It IS possible that you DID fall". It means, "It WAS possible for you to fall." The addition of "have" puts the possibility in the past, not the falling. (It couldn't put...http://www.englishforums.com/English/MoreOnModals/bbxmg/post.htm#92874Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:37:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:92874just the truth1http://www.englishforums.com/English/MoreOnModals/bbxmg/post.htm#92874http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-92874.xmlCJ: By this logic, "The neighbors may have wanted this old refrigerator" is not a case of a modal in the past, nor would this be true of 99% of the modal + have structures. Restated, the addition of "have" does nothing to modify the tense/time of the modality and everything to modify the tense/time of the proposition. JTT: You seem to be dealing with this in a detached sort of way, Jim, sort of a foot in each camp. I for one, and I say this honestly, am really happy to see such progress. Why just 99%? What would be different about the other 1%? Is your example, copied below, part of that 1%? =============== The only exception I've ever seen is in this sort of pattern: "You shouldn't have climbed that tree. You might have...http://www.englishforums.com/English/MoreOnModals/bbxmg/post.htm#92851Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:37:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:92851CalifJim2http://www.englishforums.com/English/MoreOnModals/bbxmg/post.htm#92851http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-92851.xmlThe whole thing is mine. No quotes. To expand: According to many linguists, a sentence with a modal actually splits into two parts - the modality and the proposition. Sometimes the word "residue" is used instead of "proposition". "The neighbors may want this old refrigerator." The modality is "may" (naturally). This is a stative idea meaning, more or less, "it is possible that". The proposition (residue) is what's left after removing the modal: "The neighbors want this old refrigerator". Together, the paraphrase is "It is possible that the neighbors want this old refrigerator". According to the linguists again, the modality and the proposition operate independently under certain transformations. Under negation, for...http://www.englishforums.com/English/MoreOnModals/bbxmg/post.htm#92824Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:37:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:92824just the truth3http://www.englishforums.com/English/MoreOnModals/bbxmg/post.htm#92824http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-92824.xmlCJ: Adding "have" puts the proposition (residue) in the past, not the modality. The only exception I've ever seen is in this sort of pattern: "You shouldn't have climbed that tree. You might have fallen!" The "might"ness (possibility) existed in the past, not at the time of the utterance. JTT: Could you expand on this, Jim? I'm not completely sure what it is that you're trying to say. Is the first sentence, starting with "Adding" yours or is it a quote?http://www.englishforums.com/English/MoreOnModals/bbxmg/post.htm#92767Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:37:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:92767CalifJim4http://www.englishforums.com/English/MoreOnModals/bbxmg/post.htm#92767http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-92767.xmlAdding "have" puts the proposition (residue) in the past, not the modality. The only exception I've ever seen is in this sort of pattern: "You shouldn't have climbed that tree. You might have fallen!" The "might"ness (possibility) existed in the past, not at the time of the utterance.http://www.englishforums.com/English/MoreOnModals/bbxmg/post.htmFri, 22 May 2009 01:37:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:92690just the truth5http://www.englishforums.com/English/MoreOnModals/bbxmg/post.htmhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-92690.xmlPosted By: just the truth on 04-23-2005 02:00 AM Subject: Re: Past Perfect Message: Paco: What you are (or the book is) saying is just about epistemic modals. Some root modals like 'will' (futurity) or 'can' (ability) have tense finiteness. So your saying cannot be generalized for all modals. JTT: These aren't separate modals. They are modals with varying meanings. It is precisely because all modals can operate in all time situations that it is highly misleading to call them present/past tense. Paco: I agree most epistemic modals are free from 'tense', though still we cannot use some modals such as 'will' and 'can' for talking about the event that happened in the past even when they are used as epistemic modals. ...