Search results for 'tag:British English tag:Modals' matching tags 'British English' and 'Modals'

Re: Confused with verbs

Goodman — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:09:25 GMT

Marius Hancu wrote:
Goodman wrote:

Can i say: It is essential that we be informed of your plans. Yes!

Help him understand - Ok
It is essential that we ~~should~~ be informed of your plans.
We insist that he ~~must~~ be on time

There are those who use modal in subjunctive which in my opinion is improper but some considered it acceptable. I wouldn't not recommend it.

You may want to read (if you find it) the Grammar ... by G. Curme, the best treatment of subjunctive I know (published in the 30s, but re-issued). "Should be" is a legal subjunctive, weaker than "be," in his opinion.

Well there goes nothing! I had this debate many time over the same damned topic previously. You know what ! I was trying to confirm my own knowledge, I did some searching and 20 minutes later, the answers were 50/50 or inconclusive, but amazingly I accidentally came across this:

Moderator MrPedantic Join Date: Feb 2005

Country: England

Location: SE England

First Language: British English

Posts: 1,937

Hello Aurimas

If you leave out the "should" in those sentences, the meaning won't be changed; but in British English, you'll give a greater impression of formality.

For instance, if you were writing a strong letter of complaint about the ticket collector at your local station, you might use the subjunctive version:

1. He is rude, inconsiderate, and thoroughly obnoxious. I demand that he be sacked immediately.

While in conversation or less formal contexts, you would be more likely to use the "should" version:

2. I insisted that he should contact them immediately.

Incidentally, I copied and pasted a couple if interesting threads on this topic:

http://alt-usage-english.org/subjunctive_supplement.html

http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/22159-try-tried.html

The usage of "modal verbs" in British English

Dan01 — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:25:09 GMT

Hello all,

Modal verbs such as would, should, could are common usage in british english, and besides sounding polite, is there another grammatical reason for it? Thank you.

Re: modal verbs

CalifJim — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:17:41 GMT

In the U.S., all four possibilities are acceptable. In approximate order, with most preferred first: have to, should, must, need to. need to is much less appropriate, however. must sounds very British to me. If the test item is for a course in British English, I would say choose must.

CJ

Re: Modal verbs

milky — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 07:07:56 GMT

Milky wrote:

I have agreed that certain BE speaking individuals do not follow the must subjective/have to objective line and that their use may be either regional, idiolectic, or influenced by AE use.

This is like saying "All swans are white, except the ones that are black. Nonetheless, all swans are white.">

Strange, you are the one who asked me if I thought that all BE speakers used "have to" and "must" in the way I see it.

<I'm arguing against a restrictive interpretation which does not reflect current British English usage.>

Can you prove that it doesn't? In general usage?

<"Because they're using an alternative, usually non-auxiliary, modal expression.">

Pay attention:

<< speakers tend to prefer to use an alternative, usually non-auxiliary, modal expression>> Note the qualification with "tend to" there.

Hmm. I think I should have asked this at the start: What is your definition of BE?

Re: Modal verbs

MrPedantic — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 00:02:03 GMT

Milky wrote:

I have agreed that certain BE speaking individuals do not follow the must subjective/have to objective line and that their use may be either regional, idiolectic, or influenced by AE use.

This is like saying "All swans are white, except the ones that are black. Nonetheless, all swans are white."

Milky wrote:

I fail to see what it is you are arguing against.

I'm arguing against a restrictive interpretation which does not reflect current British English usage.

Milky wrote:

I repost this so we can be clear on my stance, once more:

"A general semantic characteristic of the deontic use of the central modals is that they may all be used to express subjective deontic modality but do not all so readily permit the expression of objective deontic modality, for which speakers tend to prefer to use an alternative, usually non-auxiliary, modal expression. This is the case with must, may and need (the latter in its auxiliary use in negative interrogative contexts). Speakers generally avoid these forms when expressing objective deontic modality, substituting, respectively, have (got to, can/be allowed to and non-auxiliary need to (Cf Perkins 1983:63; Palmer 1986:103.)."

As we've already seen, this is "argument by circular reference". If I asked:

"How do we know that speakers are expressing objective deontic modality?"

you would presumably reply

"Because they're using an alternative, usually non-auxiliary, modal expression."

Tendencies are the key in TESOL. If you want to discuss why speakers tend to avoid those forms when expressing objective deontic modality, I'm here and waiting, but to keep looking at singular examples that do not follow the common line, is off-topic and a waste of energy, IMO.

For "singular examples that do not follow the common line", read "examples that disprove the theory".

MrP

Re: Modal verbs

MrPedantic — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:36:57 GMT

Now this is an interesting comment:

Exhibit A

Milky wrote:

In the article, I believe that the journalist is either reporting Anne's words in a semi-direct fashion (i.e. objectivised deontic modality) or is expressing his her own conclusion of the interview.

The sentence you call reported is of course:

1. Many single mothers, like Annette Cowley, must go to work.

Now compare A with this comment:

Exhibit B

Milky wrote:

?Annette to journalist: " I must work, the government says so." (Poor use of the modal from a BE standpoint.)

Your comma makes the sentence sound a little odd. But we can soon fix that:

2. I must work; the government says so.

Which is equivalent to:

3. The government says (that) I must work.

Now explain why, when the journalist reports Anne's words in a "semi-direct fashion", you think it's acceptable; but when Anne in your example reports the government's words in an indirect fashion, you think it's "poor use of the modal from the BE standpoint".

Or do you think that #3 is also "poor use of the modal", in British English?

MrP

Re: Modal verbs

milky — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:09:50 GMT

In the first example, if "have to do" means "have (in hand) to do" or "have (here) to do", in the sense "to have something to do", it's fine.

No, it's haff to (deontic have to) that I'm using there.

In the second example, and in the first if "have to do" is deontic, there is a slight incongruity of tone between the two clauses.

Please elaborate.

Now, please tell us what you see is the general/conventional usage of deontic have to and deontic must in British English. You haven't yet made that clear.

Re: Modal verbs

milky — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 06:56:45 GMT

<If, say, you didn't want to have your hair cut, you'd say 'have to', since the necessity would be externally imposed.>

I agree. That's the way it works in general in British English.

Root modals function when there is human control over the object or event, and it is then these modals that are chosen according to the social setting.

Re: Usually - Position

Grammarian-bot — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 03:56:47 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
Operators are the modals, forms of be, and forms of do or have when these are not the main verb.

This means

Operators are the modals, all forms of be in any circumstances, main verb or not, and do or have when these (do and have) are not the main verb.

[This is not the same as

Operators are the modals and forms of be, do, and have when these are not the main verb.]

It is American usage that I have described above.

British usage allows inversion with main-verb have, so in British English, main-verb have may be added to the list of operators. Have you an extra pen I might borrow? Americans understand this passively, but don't often generate it.

That is why you will find conflicting information on operators, particularly have.
_______

Yes, the examples I gave were the unmarked versions.

To show be as an operator in a progressive tense context I might have included the following.

I am usually sunning myself in the back yard at 2 in the afternoon if the weather is good.

So now I think you can see why the following statement is not correct.

CJ

Sorry guys. I don't know how the hell I overlooked it. Although I read that post but I think I was too excited when I got that list of rules.
Well sorry once again.

GB

Re: Usually - Position

CalifJim — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:44:08 GMT

Operators are the modals, forms of be, and forms of do or have when these are not the main verb.

This means

Operators are the modals, all forms of be in any circumstances, main verb or not, and do or have when these (do and have) are not the main verb.

[This is not the same as

Operators are the modals and forms of be, do, and have when these are not the main verb.]

It is American usage that I have described above.

British usage allows inversion with main-verb have, so in British English, main-verb have may be added to the list of operators. Have you an extra pen I might borrow? Americans understand this passively, but don't often generate it.

That is why you will find conflicting information on operators, particularly have.
_______

Yes, the examples I gave were the unmarked versions.

To show be as an operator in a progressive tense context I might have included the following.

I am usually sunning myself in the back yard at 2 in the afternoon if the weather is good.

So now I think you can see why the following statement is not correct.

The example I am usually at home in the morning doesn't have an operator (since am - form of be - is being used as a main verb).