Search results for 'tag:Difference between tag:Modals' matching tags 'Difference between' and 'Modals'

Re: wouldn't vs won't

CalifJim — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:05:46 GMT

I hope he's not listening to this right now or the gift wouldn't/won't be a surprise anymore.

It's Supposed To Be Hard! Otherwise, Everyone Would Do It!

Arrgghh!!! These would problems!

_______

You may be right that hope has an influence here, but let me explain these in a different way.

1. I hope he's not listening to this right now, or the gift won't be a surprise anymore. = I hope he's not listening to this right now, because [if he is (listening)], the gift won't be a surprise anymore.

Here we have a so-called "real condition". The situation itself is such that he may certainly be listening as the statement is uttered. Events are unfolding in real time. The fact of his listening is a distinct possibility in the real world. "What could be in this world" is that he is listening. And "what could be in this world" is that he is not listening.

2. It's supposed to be hard! Otherwise, everyone would do it! = (It is hard!) It's supposed to be hard! (because) If were not hard, everyone would do it!

This is more like an opinion than the example above. In any case, we know that in this world, it is hard. Don't let the semi-modal supposed to fool you. It implies that "it is hard". The otherwise represents the hypothetical idea that it is not hard. So this negative idea is in the world of "what could be if things were different."

But note also:

3. It's a good thing he's not listening to this right now. Otherwise, the gift wouldn't be a surprise anymore. = It's a good thing he's not listening to this right now. (because) If he were listening to this right now, the gift wouldn't be a surprise anymore.

Note the difference between 1. and 3. Here we know that he is not listening, so the word otherwise opens up a situation in the world of "what could be if things were different".

__________

To summarize: Example 1 introduces a real possibility. In the real world he may really be listening. We don't enter into the world of "what could be if things were different". Examples 2 and 3 introduce only hypothetical possibilities. In 2."what is" is that it is hard. "What could be" is that it is not hard -- which we know is not so in the situation presented. In 3. "what is" is that he is not listening. "What could be" is that he is listening -- which we know is not so in the situation presented.

Re: You may think / You may be thinking

CalifJim — Sat, 31 May 2008 06:38:34 GMT

The contrasts I gave you earlier in this thread are more appropriate for the conjugated forms, as, for example, when to be or a modal (will, may, etc.) is present.

For the case of infinitive (to rain) and gerund (raining), there is barely any difference, especially after the verb start. The gerund (raining) focuses slightly more on the on-going nature of the rain, so the feeling is slightly more, "What a nuisance the rain is!" or "How annoying that the rain keeps going!", but this is neutralized by the presence of start, which happens at a point in time. The act of starting cannot, by its nature, continue.

Regardless, after starting (which already has -ing), use the infinitive.

It is starting to rain is better than It is starting raining.

In short, don't try to imagine a difference between start raining and start to rain. It will just needlessly strain your brain.

Re: Will you be coming...(request)

CalifJim — Tue, 13 May 2008 22:38:57 GMT

I don't see a great deal of difference between a request and an invitation -- none that could be communicated entirely by a modal verb, at least. The difference seems to lie in what you expect the addressee to do.

Request:

[Can/Could] you please come to my party tonight? I need someone to help me set up the sound system.

Invitation:

I'm having a party tonight, and [I'd / I would] like (to invite) you to come. I hope you can [come / make it].

Could and can

Believer — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:32:39 GMT

Hi,

I have difficulty seeing the difference between the modals 'could' and 'can' in some normal sentential situations. My impression of things is that the use 'can' is somewhat limited to physical capacity or physical capability, whether people involved can do it physically; whereas, 'could' is usually used in conjunction with the concept of willingness or permission. But sometimes, it is very hard to make distinctions based on them.

1. Could you pass me the salt? I need to add some flavor to my dish. -- Here, I think 'willlingness' and not physical capability is at play.

2. Can you come to my birthday party? -- Here, I think, many people would say it is physical capability -- whether he is capable of coming to the party and not whether he is willing to come.

3. Could you come to my birthday party -- Unlike the above, I think 'could' here deals with his willingness.

But, it seems to be too restrictive to reflect the real-world usage of the modal 'can' to physical capacity or physical capability as it was done in the case of no. 2. I think in real life, the usage of both 'can' and 'could' cross lines and they are used in a somewhat similar fashion -- and that is the source of my confusion. Can you help?

modal verb + to

Anewcomer — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:53:16 GMT

Hi Teachers

Is it possible for modal verbs (shall,should, will, would, may, might) to be followed by "to" ?

E.g: Mr. Bahnken also said the death penalty should to be pursued for those found guilty of killing his brother

A portion of the proceeds from the sale of its paper and timber assets would to be used to return equity to shareholders

Shouldn't it be ( should be, would be), is it even common for native speaker? If yes what is the difference between "be" alone and "to be" in this context

And in the case of "have, has,is" Is this even correct? " you don't have be intimidated by the two-gigabyte jargon" "What WOW has done better than other games is be able to appeal to both audience"

Shouldn't it be "have to be" and "is to be" or"being"? what is the difference?

Thanks a lot

The difference between these two sentences (about "can/could" )

Viceidol — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:25:19 GMT

Come when you like, I can see you any time.

Come when you like, I could see you any time.

What's the difference in using different modal here? I think when we are less certain, we use "could". But I'm not sure about this. Am I right?

Thank you for your answer!

Re: Modal forms

Kooyeen — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:51:01 GMT

Doll wrote:
What is the difference between two sentences above ?

Hi Doll,
the same that there is between:
- I will buy a new laptop.
- I may buy a new laptop.

I'm sure you know the difference.

Re: Modal forms

Doll — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:42:35 GMT

Ehem, I want to ask one more queston before I leave here I still feel confused.

He may have been waiting for us for an hour by the time our train finally arrives.

He will have been waiting for us for an hour by the time our train finally arrives.

What is the difference between two sentences above ?

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: Would

Rotter — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:06:50 GMT

It seems both Marius and Magic have Swan's book.
I just look at it to find out the model verb 'would'.

However, this is a tall order for me. I am not a native English speaker.
I mean there are many ways one can play with the modal verb 'would'.
Marius could do it easily because English is his native language.

1. When/if I die, I would go to hell/heaven.
Marius said the above is a conditional sentence. Yes, no doubt about it.

Even the following sentence is a conditional sentence.
2. When/if I die, I will go to hell/heaven.
[Is the above grammatically correct? If you think it is correct, what is the difference between the two sentencs? My guess is that in the second one I am sure about my resting place.]

My book was printed in 1996. So it is old. What is the edition you all have?
Was it printed in 2005, 2006 or 2007?