By Constructions, Modals

Tung Quoc wrote:I think I would like that suit better in navy blue. " 1/ Please tell me the meaning of the modal would here.I strongly suggest to look in a English-Vietnamese dictionary, or ask a good English teacher or speaker in your...

hi tidus!you are correct. "...suffering..." is a present particle therefore it implies the action is still on going and "burn out" is the right usage in this case. if one was (most likely) to use "burnt out" in a sentence construction like in the above case, the use of any auxillary, or modal...

hi tidus!you are correct. "...suffering..." is a present particle therefore it implies the action is still on going and "burn out" is the right usage in this case. if one was (most likely) to use "burnt out" in a sentence construction like in the above case, the use of any auxillary, or modal...

Inchoateknowledge wrote: Hello Milky To my personal knowledge, double modal constructions are not grammatical. A modal may not follow another modal. In which variant/s?

Hello Milky To my personal knowledge, double modal constructions are not grammatical. A modal may not follow another modal.

CalifJim wrote:The correct possibilities are as follows.only has negative polarity is this construction, so it is the element that makes the expression non-assertive, hence eligible for the modal use of need.CJ Well CJ thanks for clarification. But as usual, you have tempted me to ask you a...

The correct possibilities are as follows. one only needs to find / one needs only to find (need in its non-modal use) one only need find / one need only find (need in its modal use) See Post:246822. See Post:55549. only has negative polarity is this construction, so it is...

dare is a marginal modal auxiliary. It can be used as a modal auxiliary with bare infinitive and without the inflected forms or as a main verbs with or without to inf and with inflected forms. He dare(s) (to) go. Dare you go? He dared not go. The modal usage is restricted to nonassertive...

Incho. Over the centuries, there are generally four accepted stages of change regarding "have": From "have + obj + to + V" to "have to + V (+ object). Stage 1. have is a full verb meaning ‘to possess, have in possession’ (still in use) Stage 2. the semantics of have are considerably weakened;...

In #2 the operative verb is was, in concord with the subject he. To have been is the infinitive perfective of be, here used in a passive construction. (To be to + infinitive is a modal idiom and we have it here in the past tense.)