Search results for 'tag:Clauses tag:Modal auxiliaries' matching tags 'Clauses' and 'Modal auxiliaries'

Re: conditional

Anonymous — Mon, 12 May 2008 01:59:29 GMT

Thank you, Mr. M. Then, what are these ones I wrote? They have if-clauses and what look to be resultant clauses, and also, they seem to be good, sensible sentences.

All first conditional??

If I hear from you before I leave, I would call you when I get home.

If I get a raise this month, I would buy a new car.

If I play soccer every two days, I might beat this illness.

If I work hard, I might/would get a raise before the end of this month.

I think those are sentences I can use any day. What are they then? Should I not use any of them and as you seem to have recommended, change the modal auxiliary verbs in the main clause to 'will'?

Re: Non finite reduced adverbial clause????

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 04:11:12 GMT

Hello, Dr. E.T. Babalola!

I'm still uncertain of the third example you've given here. Are you fully convinced that the italicised part of the third example is a non-finite clause?

As I know, clauses can be divided into two kinds, namely finite clauses and non-finite clauses. The distinguishing characteristic between these two clauses is the verb within the clauses.The verb in finite clauses must be a finite verb whereas the verb in non-finite clauses is a non-finite verb. The finite verb shows tense whereas the non-finite one doesn't. Modal auxiliaries count as finite ones. And in the third example you've given, the italicised part contains a modal, "can't". I would say that the italicised part is not a non-finite clause, but it is indeed a finte clause.

Anyway, I agree with the rest of the satisfactory explanation.

Would you please consider the possibility of revising the part that I comment on, Doctor?

Thank you for your attention.

Re: 1) In the end I had to get a lift with a colleague

Belly — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 02:00:22 GMT

Cool Breeze wrote:
Hi Belly

1) You could use to get as well. Both the full infinitive (to get) and the plain/bare infintive (get) are correct after do in sentences like yours. There is an old song All I Have To Do Is Dream. It could just as well be All I Have To Do Is To Dream.

2) Not [a single] one is idiomatic and grammatical. Not any fitted is impossible because fitted is the finite/main verb (past tense) and the collocation not any/anything/anybody is never used as a grammatical subject. Not + any/anything/anybody is possible when any is an object:

I didn't see any boys there.
I didn't see anything there.
I didn't see anybody there.

3) Should is a defective/modal auxiliary and is therefore always followed by a plain infinitive: Should your information turn out to be true, ... However, the sentence is incomplete as there is no main clause.

CB

Hi CB, so we musn't to add not before any if it is a subject, how about just any? Ex: Anyone could do that!

Re: 1) In the end I had to get a lift with a colleague

Cool Breeze — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:23:55 GMT

Hi Belly

1) You could use to get as well. Both the full infinitive (to get) and the plain/bare infintive (get) are correct after do in sentences like yours. There is an old song All I Have To Do Is Dream. It could just as well be All I Have To Do Is To Dream.

2) Not [a single] one is idiomatic and grammatical. Not any fitted is impossible because fitted is the finite/main verb (past tense) and the collocation not any/anything/anybody is never used as a grammatical subject. Not + any/anything/anybody is possible when any is an object:

I didn't see any boys there.
I didn't see anything there.
I didn't see anybody there.

3) Should is a defective/modal auxiliary and is therefore always followed by a plain infinitive: Should your information turn out to be true, ... However, the sentence is incomplete as there is no main clause.

CB

Re: might vs might have and Passive versions of both

Cool Breeze — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:53:40 GMT

Kilimanjaro wrote:

Hello Cool Breeze,

This sentence is taken from Michael SWAN's Practical English Usage. He says "might" can be used in such contexts

Hi Kilimanjaro

Yes, I know it's from that book. You mentioned it in a previous post. I didn't say it was right or wrong in my opinion. I said I wouldn't use might that way in a main clause. Grammarians don't agree on everything. There are grammarians who dislike using might as a past tense auxiliary in main clauses, and I agree with them. Perhaps this is due to my subconscious desire to decrease the ambiguity of English. Not that what I think has any bearing on that...

I also agree with a lot that has been said about might in this thread. Jim has given excellent detailed accounts of the use of might and some other auxiliaries. I have read the same in quite a few grammar books before. It has long been obvious to me that natives perceive of some auxiliaries differently in different situations. In plain English: the defective auxiliaries or modal auxiliaries are often used in ambiguous ways. English is such an inexact language that it shouldn't be used in official documents and international treaties at all.

Nobody would argue about the meaning of bought in these two sentences:

He bought a car.
He bought a car yesterday.

Bought is a past tense in both sentences, yesterday is not needed for us to understand bought correctly. If the meaning of might depends on similar expressions, on the context, the resultant sentence is bound to be ambiguous in some people's opinion in some circumstances as the number of possible words and expressions used in connection with might is endless.

Cheers
CB

Re: Beginning to define the difference.

Forbes — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:32:37 GMT

Milky wrote:

"I'd like to can swim" is ungrammatical. In English, modal auxiliaries like can and must are disallowed in infinitival clauses."

That is a statement that is true of any variety of English with which I am familiar. Prescriptivists and descriptivists are often going to agree that something is plain wrong.

I think a cloud of semantic confusion has descended on this thread.

"Prescriptivist" can be used to describe someone with pet hates, such as using split infinitives or employing an intrusive 'r' - the sort of people who write to the BBC.

"Descriptivist" can be used to describe someone who thinks that anything goes.

There are an infinite number of positions to take between these two extremes.

Re: Beginning to define the difference.

milky — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:28:00 GMT

Would this be seen as a prescriptivist statement or a descriptivist one?

"I'd like to can swim" is ungrammatical. In English, modal auxiliaries like can and must are disallowed in infinitival clauses."

Re: Presenting grammatical structures

Cool Breeze — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:59:21 GMT

Peaceblinkfriend wrote:
Hi,

If I hadn't passed my exam, I wouldn't have gone to Cancun. = This is a conditional clause and in this instance, it is being used to talk about something that might have happened in the past, but did not in fact happen. In this sort of conditional clause, you use the past perfect tense.

Hi Pbf

I would say the person in question
1. passed his exam
2. went to Cancun.

In other words, something certainly did happen.

Hadn't passed in the if-clause is structurally a past perfect or a pluperfect, as it is also called. Wouldn't have gone is a perfect conditional consisting of the defective/modal auxiliary would and a perfect infinitive (have gone). Have is the perfect auxiliary and gone is the past participle of go.

Cheers
CB

Re: Clause and use of Tenses

Cool Breeze — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 09:20:30 GMT

Jackson6612 wrote:
I hope this sentence is correct.

Your teacher may have discussed the sequence of tenses.

Can we use might in place of may? If we cannot do that then please let me know the reason.

Your teacher might have discussed the sequence of tenses.

Hi Jackson 6612

All defective auxiliaries or modal auxiliaries (can,coud; will, would; shall, should; may, might; must and ought) can take an infinitive. There are two infintives in both the active and the passive voices in English. As have discussed is a perfect infinitive, Your teacher might have discussed the sequence of tenses is correct English in the right context. Of course it does not mean the same as the same sentence with may.

To learn about the auxiliaries, look them up in a grammar book.

Cheers
CB

Re: may, might and could - what's the difference

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:40:36 GMT

One such grammatical distinction causing much confusion is the use of the modal auxiliaries âmayâ and âmightâ. When used in the present tense, the two modals are almost transposable, as the difference between the two is merely a very small degree of certainty. However, it has become common practice to use both words in the past tense as though they have the same meaning. In the past tense, may indicates doubt for whether the verb of the clause was carried out and might denotes that the doer had the opportunity to perform an action, but did not. For example, a statement such as If they hadnât been so brave, I may not have been rescued, could seem reasonable to some native English speakers, however, the speaker was rescued, and therefore might in place of may would be grammatically correct. Conversely, the use of the auxiliary might in a statement such as If I had worn a prettier dress last night, I might have attracted a nice man, the auxiliary may would have made more grammatical sense, as it is not certain that a prettier dress would have resulted in the attraction of a nice man.