Search results for 'tag:Conversations tag:Modals' matching tags 'Conversations' and 'Modals'

Re: Follow-up to "Nagging conditional problem"

Mr Wordy — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 02:23:40 GMT

Anonymous

If you happen to have money (with/on you), could/would you lend me some? [this is more about present -- if the if-clause is in present tense, can we use the modals 'could' and 'would'? Does the phrase 'happen to have' make any difference here?

Should you have money (with/on you), could/would you lend me some? ["chancy" should -- To me, 'should' here is functionally equal to "if", so the sentence could be read:

If you have money (with/on you), could/would you lend me some?

The first sentence means essentially the same as "...can/will you lend me some?", but "could/would" has the effect of "softening" the request -- making it seem less direct. The use of "happen to have" (as opposed to just "have") makes no difference to the point you're asking about.

In the second sentence there is, to me, no tangible difference in meaning between "should" and "if". However, the version with "should" is more formal (or even slightly old-fashioned), and, in my part of the world, is much less likely to be heard in ordinary conversation. (In fact, in real life, I would in this context usually say "If you have any money...".)

Re: Could and can

Avangi — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:40:54 GMT

I'm not into modals, but I think both can and could denote physical capability. I can lift this box. I could lift this box. (with or without implied conditions)

With polite questions people often don't say what they mean, because they don't want to put the person addressed in a bind. If you really want to know if the person will come, Ask him. "Will you come to my party?" That covers both willingness and capability.

I'd say "could" is less committal than "can," perhaps because of it's possible implied conditions, It's easier to say "No" without offending the questioner. I agree that between the two, if the questioner wishes to address capability, he should use "can." But without any additional context to suggest that's their intention, most questioners would use "can" and "could" interchangeably. It depends a lot on the habits of the person asking, and on the social nature of the situation. "Could" is more polite; "can" is more direct. And some people are more direct by nature.

If there had been a previous conversation in which the invited person suggested he might have a conflict (Implying, perhaps falsely, that he'd be willing if he could clear the conflict), then the questioner would subsequently use "can" to reinvite him.

Many people will say "Can you pass me the salt?" You wouldn't hear it at a White House white-tie-and-tails dinner, except possibly by George himself. But no one under any conditions would take it to mean, "Are you capable of passing me the salt?"

Probably that doesn't help you at all.

- A.

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

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

CalifJim — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 22:41:45 GMT

I am trying to formulate guidelines for learners of English as a foreign language with regards the use of may/might/could to express possibility. It seems to me that you can use these three modals (almost) interchangeably when expressing possibility.

For example, 'Where's Mary?' 'I'm not sure. She may/might/could be in her room.' or 'It may/might/could rain later on.'.

Are there any differences in use between these three modals? If so, what are they?

I assume your question is restricted to the "unconstrained modals of logic", and that you are not asking about the use of may for permission or could for ability, for example. There are a few differences, particularly with respect to could, which is, in my opinion, only an "honorary" member of the group.

1. could does not operate under negation in the same way as may and might. Whereas may not and might not express the possibility of the negated proposition, could not expresses impossibility unless some unusual stress pattern is provided by the speaker, maybe even with a slight pause after could.

She may be there. She might be there. She could be there.
She may not be there. She might not be there. *She could not be there. (in the intended reading) (Actually, even may not is a little suspect, as the 'permission' meaning of may might come through in that example.)

2. could almost requires a following be (in the intended reading).

The puppy is thin; he [might / may / could] be [hungry / lost / a stray].
That music sounds like a symphony; it [might / may / could] be by Mozart.
Susan says that the answer is 67, and she [might / may / could] be right.

Otherwise the unintended 'ability' reading or some other anomalous interpretation is too likely:

The drain is blocked; we [might / may / ?could] have to call a plumber.
Liz looks tired; she [might / may / ?could] want to take a nap.
The current rules are too confusing, so the committee [might / may / ?could] develop new rules.

There seems to be no problem if the verb is meteorological, however, because the 'ability' reading is blocked. The weather is not physically able to do things as an agent:

It [might / may / could] rain this afternoon.

The same reasoning applies with other non-agentive situations:

The cake is too big, but the cookies [might / may / could] fit in this box.

3. Unlike might and may, could does not occur with as well. This was mentioned in another post above. (It's debatable whether this is even a case of the "unconstrained modals of logic", but I'll mention it here anyway.)

This party is really dull; we [might / may / *could] as well leave.

4. In American English, the difference between may and might is one of register. may occurs in official announcements and scientific papers, for example, and might occurs more often in ordinary conversation. (Percentages of probability have nothing to do with it!)

Employees may find this information helpful in choosing a health care plan.
For hydrocarbon molecules of this type, electrophoresis may give better results.
We might take a trip to Disneyland this summer.

could would probably not be used in any of the three examples immediately above (in the intended reading).

5. may is not often used in backshifts, but both might and could are.

I [might / may / could] be ready by 10.
I thought (that) I [might / *may / could] be ready by 10.

Re: could have been and would have been

Doll — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:23:20 GMT

Believer wrote:
My try:
Hi,

1. I think the modal verb 'could' could be used as a past form of the modal verb 'can' and the modal verb 'would' can be used to express the sense of past-ness. Yes. Can you tell me if these uses are correct?

When I was fifeen years old, I could do many push-ups.

Now, if I ask someone about his capability to do push-ups at the age of fifteen, I would probably have to phrase it this way.

Q: Hi, John, nice to meet you. How many push-ups could you do when you were fifteen?

A: Oh, let me think, I think I could do twenty of them at that age. No problem with the sentences.

But, I think this is acceptable too. If it is acceptable, why is that?

A: Oh, let me think, I think I could have done twenty back then at the age of fifteen. -- Sure I changed some words but I think the overall pattern remained the same.   No my dear. You miss one point. Could have done means there was a possibilty that he could do ... at that time . Another example: A mother sees her child go acroos the road without checking cars so she shouts at him saying :" silly boy! You could have been run over by a car!" Of course at the time of speaking the child is still living. She just means that with a high probability a car may have hit him because every condition was ready for such a situation.

2. As to the modal verb 'would', both forms 'would + verb' and 'would + have + participle' would convey the notion of past-ness, but the use of them seems to deserve close scrutiny.

When I was fifteen years old, I would do many push-ups in one day.

This says how many he was able to do when he was fifteen.   You can change would with used to here. Here he says what he used to do before.

Conversation:

A: When I was fifteen, I would ride my uni-cycle to go to school. (the notion of past-ness expressed.)   yes.

B: Is that right? I wouldn't have ridden a uni-cycle at that age to go to school. Riding it causes too much strain on a person's legs and that isn't good for a kid.  here we are talking about a hypothetical situation of the past. A is telling us a real situation done by him in the past but this is not valid for B. Because of this, B says wouldn't have. I wouldn't have ridden a uni-cycle if I had had it because riding it causes...

Why isn't it more natural to say in this way?

B: Is that right? I wouldn't ride a uni-cycle at that age to go to school. Riding it ...   hmm I have to think about this before telling anything butI wouldn't reply so if I were asked such a question. Here it sounds like it was a regular-basis for B not to ride uni-cycle at taht age... I wouldn't guess that B was talking about past when I heard this.

I think 'wouldn't ride' is OK to express the past-ness and the latter version is correct but I have heard people using the formenr version with 'wouldn't have ridden'. Is this correct?

could have been and would have been

Believer — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:15:21 GMT

Hi,

1. I think the modal verb 'could' could be used as a past form of the modal verb 'can' and the modal verb 'would' can be used to express the sense of past-ness. Can you tell me if these uses are correct?

When I was fifeen years old, I could do many push-ups.

Now, if I ask someone about his capability to do push-ups at the age of fifteen, I would probably have to phrase it this way.

Q: Hi, John, nice to meet you. How many push-ups could you do when you were fifteen?

A: Oh, let me think, I think I could do twenty of them at that age.

But, I think this is acceptable too. If it is acceptable, why is that?

A: Oh, let me think, I think I could have done twenty back then at the age of fifteen. -- Sure I changed some words but I think the overall pattern remained the same.

2. As to the modal verb 'would', both forms 'would + verb' and 'would + have + participle' would convey the notion of past-ness, but the use of them seems to deserve close scrutiny.

When I was fifteen years old, I would do many push-ups in one day.

This says how many he was able to do when he was fifteen.

Conversation:

A: When I was fifteen, I would ride my uni-cycle to go to school. (the notion of past-ness expressed.)

B: Is that right? I wouldn't have ridden a uni-cycle at that age to go to school. Riding it causes too much strain on a person's legs and that isn't good for a kid.

Why isn't it more natural to say in this way?

B: Is that right? I wouldn't ride a uni-cycle at that age to go to school. Riding it ...

I think 'wouldn't ride' is OK to express the past-ness and the latter version is correct but I have heard people using the formenr version with 'wouldn't have ridden'. Is this correct?

Re: 'Can't +S+V' & 'Can+s+not+v' ?

CalifJim — Sun, 27 May 2007 20:25:33 GMT

Modal/Auxiliary + subject-pronoun + not + V ... ?

This is a lesser used grammatical pattern. It is used for rhetorical effect. It makes the speaker more like a teacher making a pronouncement rather than an ordinary person having a normal conversation. It may give a haughty or pompous tone to the sentence, or it may make the sentence sound somewhat old-fashioned.

Can you not see that I am right?
Do you not agree that two and two is four?
Have you not experienced it yourself?

CJ

Re: subjunctive or past conditional

Goodman — Mon, 07 May 2007 23:03:25 GMT

Hi Bokeh,

Becasue of your reply, it made me take a second look at the original question. I also did some research and found this paper written on the subject of Semantic Composition of Subjunctive Conditionals by Michela Ippolito of MIT/TÃ¼bingen University. I am not completely sure if I understood all thwt he wrote, but I do agree whole-heartedly with his view from what I understood. It's obvious that there are several subjunctive moods and conditionals discussed in great legnth which was exactly the reason causing the confusions on this thread. I find it absoulutely useful so I've extracted a small portion which I beleive was related the posted question.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=type+of+subjunctive

michela@alum.mit.edu

3. The Semantic Analysis of Subjunctive Conditionals

In answering the question of what the correct semantic analysis of subjunctive

conditionals is we will raise and answer the following questions too: (1) What is the

difference between indicative an subjunctive conditionals? (2) What is the role of the

past morphology in the composition of the meaning of a subjunctive conditional? (3)

What is the contribution of the second layer of past to the meaning of subjunctive

conditionals? As Iatridou observes, the past morphology in subjunctive conditionals is

not interpreted temporally, as the event of playing baseball in example (2) is supposed

to take place in the future (tomorrow). What follows in this paper is inspired by her

work and by the intuition behind it, i.e. that the temporal morphology we see in modal

constructions actively contributes to the construction of the modal meaning. However,

I depart from her idea that tense morphology has a âcore meaningâ that can apply to

different kinds of entities (i.e. her idea that if it applies to times, it is interpreted

temporally; if it applies to worlds, then it is interpreted modally). My claim is that

tense (aspectual) morphology has a single, definite interpretation: the temporal

(aspectual) one. The way tense morphology contributes to the composition of modal

meaning is by being interpreted in different positions in the structure of a modal

sentence, i.e. either in the restriction or in the nuclear scope of the modal operator.

Recall that I am arguing that accessibility relations are of type <s<i<st>> (where i is

the type for times and s the type for worlds): the notion of accessible world is relative

not only to a world but also to a time so that a world will be accessible if it satisfies

certain conditions with respect to an evaluation world and an evaluation time. The

past that we see in subjunctive conditionals such as If Charlie played baseball

tomorrow, we would lose the game is the morphological realization of a perfect

operator interpreted in the modal domain. I will develop an analysis of the meaning of

subjunctive conditionals and show how it solves the puzzle of the presupposition

projection for subjunctive conditionals discussed in Heim 1992; finally, I will answer

the three questions I raised above.

3.1 Felicity Conditions for Conditionals

Recall what the puzzle was. The antecedent of a subjunctive conditional can be

inconsistent with the common ground, and consequently, the set of worlds the modal

operator quantifies over cannot be restricted to the worlds in the context set (the

epistemically accessible worlds) (see (19) below). Furthermore, this set cannot be the

empty context (W) either because, if it were, we would expect conditionals with

antecedents with presuppositions to be infelicitous since the modal base does not have

the right entailments. However, this is incorrect: subjunctive conditionals whose

antecedents have presuppositions are felicitous, which means that the antecedentâs

presuppositions can be entailed by the modal base (cf. (20)). In fact, they must (cf.

(21)).

(19) Jack is dead. If he were alive, he would come to the ceremony.

(20) Jack smokes. If he quit smoking tomorrow, which he wonât, he would run

the marathon.

(21) Jack quit smoking last year. If he quit smoking tomorrow, he would run

the marathon.

Heim 1992 concluded that the only way to reconcile these two requirements of

subjunctive conditionals is to stipulate that the modal base is neither the set of

epistemically accessible worlds (the main context) nor the totally empty modal base

W, but the (largest) set of worlds obtained by suspending all the speakerâs

assumptions except the presuppositions of the antecedent, which then remain entailed.

However, I showed above that this stipulation does not work for all subjunctive

conditionals: in particular, it does not account for the difference between one-past

subjunctive conditionals and mismatched two-pasts subjunctive conditionals, as

shown below.

(22) Jack died last year.

a. #If he came to the ceremony tomorrow, he would be proud of Sally.

b. If he had come to the graduation tomorrow, he would have been proud

of Sally.

We are back where we were: how is the set of worlds to which modal operators apply

selected? Clearly, the felicity conditions for indicative, one-past and two-pasts

subjunctive conditionals are all different. But what is the difference and how is the

difference determined?

It seems correct to hold that for a sentence to be felicitously uttered in the

context c, c must entail the presuppositions of . In the common ground theory of

presuppositions developed by Stalnaker (1973, 1974, 1975), the common ground is

the set of all the propositions known or assumed to be true by all the participants in

the conversation, and the context set is the set of worlds where all the propositions in

the common ground are true. Assertions are meant to update the common ground. If

the assertion is made and accepted, the common ground expands and the context set

shrinks. Thus, if a sentence presupposes p, then asserting requires that the

common ground entail p, i.e. it requires that the speaker assume that it is true in the

common ground that p, modulo accommodation.10 It is explicit in Heimâs context

change semantics (and implicit in Stalnakerâs idea of a derived context) that a clause

(that is to say, the structural description of a clause at the level of Logical Form) is not

always evaluated with respect to the context of utterance: the context with respect to

which a structure is evaluated depends on the level of embedding of the clause, the

most unembedded clause being interpreted with respect to the main (utterance)

context. We can then reformulate the principle above: what is responsible for the

felicity of a sentence is not whether its presuppositions are entailed by the utterance

context but whether they are entailed by the evaluation context (which may be

identical to the utterance time in some cases). Call this principle PREP.

10 Stalnaker (1972, 1973, 1974, 1978, 1988, 1998). Kartunnen (1974), Lewis (1979), Heim (1982,

1983, 1992), Thomason (1990) and von Fintel (2000) also contributed important work in the tradition

of the common ground theory of presuppositions.

3.2 What Looks Like Past is Perfect

I propose that the past morphology we see in subjunctive conditionals in English is

the morphological realization of a perfect operator. The English perfect, and

especially the present perfect, has raised a lot of interest in the linguistic literature

because of the properties that distinguish it from both the present and the simple past

tense. McCoard (1978) offers a survey of possible theories of the perfect: the current

relevance theory, the indefinite past theory, the embedded past theory and, finally, the

theory that he argues to be the best, the Extended Now theory. Very briefly, according

11 The claim that the presuppositions of the antecedent of a conditional have to be entailed by the

context is a standard claim of a dynamic approach to meaning (Heim 1992). However, we will see later

that the issue is more intricate and I will have more to say on this topic later on in the paper.

Re: Conditionals and modals in reported speech

MrPedantic — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:11:23 GMT

Hello Kooyeen

1. I'd like to go to Jenny's party ----> He said he would like to go to Jenny's party (I would say this is ok only if Jenny hasn't had the party yet)

â It's also possible that someone would say this, if the party had already happened; but I think your interpretation is more likely.

2. I'd like to go to Jenny's party ----> He said he would have liked to go to Jenny's party (I would say so if Jenny has already had the party or she's having the party now)

â Also if "he" knows that he won't be going to the party. So the point is "non-attendance", rather than the time frame.

3. You should eat more vegetables -----> My doctor said I should eat more vegetables (I'd say this is ok as a general statement, I should eat more vegetables, that's good for my health)

â Yes, it's fine as a general statement; but it can also e.g. relate to an incident in the past: "My doctor said I should eat more vegetables; so I did".

4. You should eat more vegetables in the next few days, until you get well -----> ~~My doctor said I should have eaten more vegetables in the next few days, until I got well~~ (I wouldn't just say "should" here. That's a past situation, I don't need to eat more vegetables now)

I see two possibilities here:

a) My doctor said I should eat more vegetables, over the next few days, until I get well again [the situation is still "current"]

b) My doctor said I should eat more vegetables, over the following few days, until I got well again; so I did, and I did.

5. If you catch that disease, you could die -------> They told my grandfather that if he caught that disease, he could have died (I'd say this is ok if my grandpa has already died, or if there's no possibility of dying or catching that disease now)

â I would say "...if he had caught...", for that meaning. The main thing is that he didn't catch the disease, and didn't die of it. Also:

a) They told my g.f. that if he caught that disease, he could die. [He might be alive; he might be dead.]

b) They told my g.f. that if he catches that disease, he could die. [The situation is still current; he's alive.]

6. If you caught that disease, you could even die ------> They told my grandfather that if he had caught that disease, he could have died (Same as above, that is, I'd say this is ok if my grandpa has already died, or if there's no possibility of dying or catching that disease now)

â see above.

7. If I had the money, I would give it to you -----> He said that if he had the money, he would give it to me (This way, I think what he said is still true)

â This would be fine even if you had subsequently discovered that he was lying. For instance, you might use it to report the conversation in court.

8. If I had some money with me, I would buy you a beer -----> He said that if he'd had some money with him, he would have bought me a beer (Past situation, I would have paid me a beer on that occasion, this is not a general statement as the above one)

â Yes, the incident is closed.

9. If I had enough money, I'd move straight to the US! ------> Hey, did you know Bill is in the US now? - Ah, he made it then! Actually, I remember he once told me that if he'd had enough money, he would have moved straight to the US. (no personal comments, there's enough context)
â "Bill once told me that if he had enough money, he'd move straight to the US": Bill may have moved to the US; or he may still be hoping to do so.

â "Bill once told me that if he'd had enough money, he would have moved straight to the US": Bill no longer hopes to move to the US.

I don't know if that helps â those are my initial thoughts, but other members may well discover meanings or versions I've missed!

All the best,

MrP

Re: Plesae explain this.

Mr Patrick — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:32:05 GMT

Hi Sabyakgp,

As Nona rightly points out, in your first example the modal verb "would" is used to express how the described conditions are related to a previous decision taken by his minders. But while Nona interprets the would as expressing uncertainty about what actually happened, I am more inclined to perceive it as a tool to highlight the obligation itself.

Present, the bailiff speaking: "Inmate Shipman, you will have no TV in your cell!"

Past: The bailiff decided that inmate Shipman would have (had) no TV in his cell.

Of course, would have had to wear prison uniform AND had to wear prison uniform sound roughly the same, as they both imply an obligation. Would have had no TV in his cell also shows this obligation, but had no TV in his cell does not express any obligation at all.

Your new example seems to be a clear case of the principle that Nona proposed:

face transplant, according to the surgeons who say they could carry it out, would involve removing the face of a dead person and placing it on someone who is still alive.The donor and patient would have similar skin tone and the same blood type and would be of comparable age.....

This type of surgery is by no means straight-forward. Nerves in the muscle would have to be attached to nerves in the patient's head.

Here, the journalists are saying that they are relying on the data provided by the surgeons. If would were to be replaced by will, the journalist would be accepting responsibility for all of these affirmations. The way it stands, they are only relating an interview or conversation.

Regards, Patrick