Search results for 'tag:Expressions tag:Modal verbs' matching tags 'Expressions' and 'Modal verbs'

Re: case of subjunctive in the 'if' clause?

CalifJim — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:15:22 GMT

It's not subjunctive. It's the modal use of need. Modal need can occur in non-assertive contexts. Modals never take the s in the first person singular of the present tense the way non-modal verbs do. In that way they resemble subjunctive forms, which are also missing the s.

The subject of the clause is missing, however (if it need be), but that's because if need be has become a fixed idiomatic expression.

Re: did or was

Philip — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:10:27 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

Hi,

Sometimes I get confused which one to used in the situations like the one or ones below.

Did he go to school on Sunday?

Was he born in Japan?

Why one takes a modal verb 'did', whereas the other one takes an auxiliary verb 'was'? How can I make correct choices?

'Go' is a regular verb that uses do/does/did in the formation of negatives and questions.

'Born' is actually the past participle of 'bear', here used in the passive. 'He was born [by his mother until his birth]' has become shortened to 'he was born', which is now the common expression, people not even thinking of the actual meaning. Dictionaries now list it as an adjective in its own right: 'brought into life by birth'.

Re: Politeness using negative questions

Kooyeen — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:09:52 GMT

Hi again,
I think you guys are right. maybe now I understand. I just read some stuff on the net about negative questions, plus one of Jim's posts, and this "idea" I had seems the right one:

Kooyeen wrote:
Idea! Maybe that only works with modals and with requests, not permissions? So couldn't you, wouldn't you, won't you, can't you... are used for politeness, but can't I, couldn't I, don't you, aren't you... only sound like you're insisting, which is the opposite of being polite?

Negative questions are possible with modals, but they are not going to sound more polite, but a little less polite instead, because they imply a positive answer is expected and so they actually sound a little more demanding. -> Wouldn't you like a cookie? Couldn't you answer my question?
When there are no modals, a positive answer is still expected, and negative questions are not used to ask a neutral or polite question.

What made me change my mind was an article written by someone who had a non-native (Russian) boss who sounded really rude because of his negative questions, which he thought they were a polite way to ask everything. If I hadn't found out about this, I would have end up like him, LOL.

I still have a problem: I said asking negative questions with modal verbs is still considered "polite", even though it sounds a little bit more demanding (Could you...? ---> Couldn't you...? // Would you...? ---> Wouldn't you...? // etc.)
I'm afraid (but not sure) there are some exceptions.
First exception: not all modals. Can might be an exception (Can you...? ---> Can't you?) and he negative might not be accepted among the "polite" expressions. Can you give me one? ---> Can't you give me one?
Second exception: this might not work with the first person I or we (Can I...? Could I...? ---> Can't I...? Couldn't I?) and the negative wouldn't sound polite anymore. Could I go out? ---> Couldn't I go out?

Sorry if this thread is a mess... this is very different in Italian, and I'd like to avoid sounding rude or annoying someone without wanting to.
Thanks a lot in advance.

Re: past perfect vs past in if-clause in type 2 conditional

yulysess — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:05:12 GMT

Let's spread out the issue a little bit:

____ O ____

Type 2. Basic forms.

a. If we caught the 10 o'clock train, we would (could, might,

etc.) get there by lunch-time.

b. If I came into a fortune, I would give up smoking.

c. If I knew how it worked, I could tell you what to do.

In these sentences the conditional clauses represent what is a possible, b hypothetical/imaginary, or c contrary to the present fact. The verb form in the conditional clause represents the attitude of the speaker towards the condition; it does not represent time, which is indicated by other elements in the context or situation.

Sentence a is analogous to type 1 (If we catch..., we shall get...), but is more suppositional. The speaker either regards catching that train as improbable, or he wishes to put forward in a more tentative or "polite" way the suggestion of catching it. It does not necessarily follow that the condition is in fact unlikely to be fulfilled.

Sentence b, on the other hand, is much more hypothetical: it is a form of day-dreaming in which we all indulge at times.

Sentence c presents us with totally imaginary (or unreal) situation with reference to the time of speaking: it implies that I don't, in fact, know how it works, so I can't tell you what to do. Note that the past tense is used here to indicate present unreality.

The three sentences are formally identical: they all have the same sequence of tenses:

(if) past tense, (main) conditional.

However, contextually they are rather different. They represent three points on a scale of decreasing probability, from a suppositional or tentative but possible, to b hypothetical but not impossible, to c contrary to present fact, and hence unreal.

Note that the conditional tense is not used in the conditional clause.

As we saw in example "c", the idea of something contrary to present fact is conveyed by the use of the past tense in the conditional clause. We also use the past tense to refer to present unreality after the verb "wish" (if only, also expresses the wish of the speaker), and after expressions like "I'd rather" and "It is time":

a. I wish (that) I were rich! (If only I were rich!)

b. I'd rather you told me frankly what you think.

c. It's time (It's about time, It's high time) we left.

We never use the present tense or a future form after wish. We use either the past tense as illustrated above, or we can use would (not will) to indicate that people or events frustrate our desires.

Type 2. Variations.

a. If we were to miss the 10 o'clock train, we wouldn't get there till after lunch.

The use of were to in the conditional clause sometimes has the effect of emphasizing the suppositional nature of the condition and, is in some ways analogous to the use of should in conditional clauses in TYPE 1: we can often substitute "by any chance" without changing the meaning: If by any chance we missed the 10 o'clock train, we wouldn't get there till after lunch.

Were to is used for all persons, and this variation may be applied to any conditional clause of this second type.

b. If you would reserve seats, we would be sure of a comfortable journey.

In this sentence. would is not a part of a conditional tense; it is a modal verb, and represents a more tentative (or polite) form of WILL as used in conditional clauses of type 1. It introduces the idea of your agreeing, or being willing, to do what is suggested. We cannot use this construction in the following sentence:

If he got my letters in time, he would be able to change his plans.

We cannot say

*If he would get my letter in time, since "he" can hardly exercise any willingness or unwillingness to get it.

You must, therefore, be careful to use "would" in this way only where the context will support the idea of co-operation, agreement, or willingness on the part of the subject.

Type 2. Summary of forms.

1. (If) past tense, (main) conditional.

If we caught the early train, we'd get there by lunch time.

2. (If) were to + infinitive, (main) conditional.

If we were to miss the early train, we wouldn't get there till after lunch.

3. (If) would + infinitive, (main) conditional.

If you'd cook the dinner, I'd do the washing up afterwards.

Type 3. Basic forms and variations.

a. If we had caught the 10 o'clock train, we would (could, might, etc.) have got there by lunch-time.

This sentence is completely hypothetical, and represents what is contrary to past fact. In this case, the past perfect tense is used to indicate past unreality -we didn't catch the 10 o'clock train, so we didn't get there by lunch time.

This is analogous to the use of the past tense to indicate present unreality in type 2c, and tense usage after the verb WISH follows the same pattern: we use the past perfect to refer to something wished-for in the past:

I wish you had told me before (but you didn't)

Variations on a sentence "a" are not very common, though sentences like the following are occasionally met with:

b. If you were to have asked me, I would have been only too willing to help.

Bibliography

R. A. Close (1975). A Reference Grammar for Students of English. Longman.

B.D. Graver (1979). Advanced English Practice. OUP

S.M. Parkinson (1983). A University English Grammar for Spanish-Speakers. Ed. EmpeÃ±o

R. Quirk et al. (1979). A Grammar of Contemporary English. Longman

W. Stannard Allen (1977). Living English Structure. Longman

M. Swan (1986). Practical English Usage. OUP

A.J. Thomson & A.V. Martinet (1982). A Practical English Grammar. OUP

______ O _______

Enjoy

Also look at the link Marius gave.

Re: under obligation

MrPedantic — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 17:13:04 GMT

Milky wrote:

<By the way, would you always interpret this as the expression of an external "drive"?>

Why do you ask?

That's what we do here, old chap. Except when we're answering.

But let me explain what I mean.

Suppose your attractive neighbour (a native BrE speaker) confessed to an overwhelming urge to seduce a local grammarian.

A few days later, you run into her in the street. You ask her about the grammarian. She responds with a graphic account of a heated afternoon above the Linguistics Lab.

You are frankly appalled. He has such decidedly dodgy views on modal verbs, after all. "How could you!" you expostulate. To which she replies:

1. I just had to...I couldn't stop myself...

Now earlier, you said:

Milky wrote:

Once more: The speaker perceives the modality as external or internal and finds the appropriate modal to express that.

We've already established that, in your view, the choice of "have to" indicates a perception on the part of the speaker that the modality is "external".

So presumably, you would be entitled to infer that your attractive neighbour perceives whatever-it-was that drove her to seduce your friend the grammarian as strictly "external".

Is that the case?

MrP

Re: The Seven Deadly Sins of Grammar

Drewauerbach — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:08:48 GMT

Alienvoord, I appreciate you're constructive criticism. Allow me to rebute:

1) Comprehensible, yes. But many expressions are comprehensible even without being gramatically sound. The nuances I try to reveal in this post are to help you write better gramatically, not to sound or to write comprehensible.

2) I cannot refute this well supported argument. In fact, there is a sliver of the article that directly weakens my point. I quote:
-------BEGIN EXCERPT FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive -----------

Problems caused by trying to avoid the split infinitive

Stylistically, the careful placement of another word between to and the bare infinitive sometimes avoids ambiguity or ugliness. The old prohibition on split infinitives is particularly surprising when one observes that there are a number of expressions in English that are weakened considerably by avoiding the split infinitive.

[edit]

An example

R.L. Trask uses this example:

She decided to gradually get rid of the teddy bears she had collected.

Clearly, what is implied here is she took a decision to get rid of her teddy bears, and the disposal would happen over time. 'Gradually' splits the infinitive 'to get'. But if we were to move it, where would it go?. Consider the following:

She decided gradually to get rid of the teddy bears she had collected.

This implies that the decision was gradual.

She decided to get rid of the teddy bears she had collected gradually.

This implies that the collecting process was gradual.

She decided to get gradually rid of the teddy bears she had collected.

This sounds awkward to most native speakers of English.

She decided to get rid gradually of the teddy bears she had collected.

This is almost as awkward as its immediate predecessor.

Not only does the original example sound right to a native speaker, it is also the only semantically sound possibility.

The best way to avoid using split infinitives is usually via a change in lexical choices. However, in spoken language, phonetic stresses and timing is usually all that is needed for a sentence's actual implications to be understood.

In other instances, use of a split infinitive is for many people the most natural way to add certain kinds of emphasis in conversation:

Student A: "I'm going to do better next year."Student B: "I'm going to really do better next year."

On a historical level, it is possible that years of attacks against split infinitives by prescriptive grammarians have cowed some people into needless reluctance to split other compound verb forms. For example, people will contort sentences to avoid placing an adverb in its usual position between the auxiliary verb and the participle, leading to constructions such as, "The argument originally had been usedâ¦" instead of "The argument had originally been used", which is more natural for most speakers.

It is probably not possible to disentangle this argument from the modality of English grammar. Typically, in a phrase such as "I am going to", the verbal construct "to be going to" acts as a modal verb, analogous to other standard modal verbs "will", "could", "can" etc. In this sense, it becomes apparent that the preposition 'to' does not belong to the infinitive verb, but rather to the modal verb. In this case, it becomes impossible to split an infinitive.

-------END EXCERPT FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive --------

3) By saying, "I only <want to go to the movies>," you do NOT imply that you also <do not want to breathe.> Again, you got to pay attention to what "only" is modifying, the verb. By placing the limiting modifier before the first verb in this sentence, you imply limitations to what you can do, including breathing (although the idea sounds exagerrated initially, it really is correct). Now, you say that the sentence implies that the speaker <does not want to breathe>. Not so! In fact, the speaker implies that (s)he CANNOT breathe, regardless of desire. In fact, the speaker implies that (s)he is capable of only desiring to go to the movies. In my last sentence, I would have been correct to say, "In fact, the speaker implies that (s)he is only capable of desiring to go to the movies," or, "In fact, the speaker implies that (s)he only is capable of desiring to go to the movies."

4) The point I'm trying to make here is that using "it" as a dummy subject is gramatically incorrect; therefore, we should reject its use as a dummy subject (think prescriptivist rather than descriptivist).

5) I do not understand your argument here; therefore, I cannot refute it.

6) Your "counterargument" seems to be more like a historical basis that I would use to set up my argument. Which side are you on: yours or mine?

7) You're correct; I have not. Here is my evidence: Passive voice is boring. End of discussion.

Re: 'might' to express annoyance

CalifJim — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 01:04:30 GMT

In the first example (mild annoyance), he might have offered = he should have offered.*
In Clive's example, he might have offered = it is possible that he would have offered.
In my example, he might have offered = it is possible that he did offer.

Oh, the joys of modal verbs!

CJ

*The first example is one of a general category of modal expressions in which an understatement invites the implication which is actually intended.

There are two major classes, rather symmetrical in form and meaning:
1 possibility / ability implying expectation to do something
and 2 non-obligation implying expectation not to do something.

1 You [might / could] have told me that the bookstore was closed at that hour. (It would have saved me a trip.) > I expected you to tell me; you should have told me (since you knew).
2 You [didn't have to mention / needn't have mentioned] my faults in front of the boss! (Now you've spoiled my chances for a promotion.) > I expected you not to mention them; you should not have mentioned them.

CJ

Re: "has to" as a helping verb?

CalifJim — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 05:58:51 GMT

Yes, you're right. Apparently we do have different understandings of objective and subjective. But look at the bright side: We agree that the sentences do not illustrate deontic usage!

On this whole topic I am in basic agreement with John Lyons, who, to say it as briefly as possible, proceeds (in Semantics) as follows.

First, he gives definitions of terms and examples of an epistemic and a deontic reading of a sentence, to introduce the topic. Then he says, "Various terms have been used by linguists to distinguish [the epistemic reading] from [the deontic reading]. Kurylowicz (1964) would say that [the epistemic reading] involves subjectivity (i.e., the expression of the speaker's attitude), whereas [the deontic reading] does not."

Lyons then says that he will draw a distinction between subjective and objective epistemic modality. And that "when we take up the discussion of deontic modality, we shall see that a similar distinction can also be drawn between subjective and objective deontic modality." A little later in the discussion, he summarizes with "The fact that both epistemic and deontic modality can be interpreted either subjectively or objectively means that Kurylowicz's account of the distinction between epistemic and deontic modality cannot be correct, ..."

Actually, I'm not particularly interested in whether Kurylowicz is correct or not. I'm interested more in the fact that the linguistics experts disagree about how terms like "subjective" and "objective" apply to modality. When there is no uniform approach agreed to in the literature, and when some authors, like Lyons, see the subjective/objective polarity applying to both epistemic and deontic modality, then I conclude for myself personally that the use of the terms "subjective" and "objective" are not likely to advance the cause of students' understanding of modal verbs. I consciously avoid such terminology when discussing modals with students. I do like "epistemic" and "deontic", however, and there is much more agreement in the literature about what these terms mean. But even then, I use the words "modals of logic" and "modals of social interaction" instead of the fancy theoretical terms when speaking to students about these verbs.

CJ
PS. It's not necessary to quote everything in every previous post of the thread before responding!

Re: To do or not to do.

CalifJim — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:14:01 GMT

The auxiliary "do" is used in questions, negatives, emphatic expressions, and tags.

You liked her. Did you like her? You didn't like her. Didn't you like her?
You did like her. You liked her, didn't you? You did like her, didn't you?

As for emphatics, they frequently occur in the "but" clause after a negative statement (as in your example).

... didn't ...., but did ...

As for tags, they always invert the subject and verb, and they are always in the reverse polarity (affirmative / negative) from what they tag.

You didn't like her, did you?
You liked her, didn't you?

(There is an exception in which the statement tagged and the tag are both affirmative. This is used in the special case where you want to express surprise at the information you heard.)

You liked her, did you?

The auxiliary "have" and the modal verbs (can, must, ...) substitute for "do" in these functions, when present.
(When "have" is the main verb, and not an auxiliary, as in your example, "have" cannot substitute for "do", and "do" is used.)

CJ

[By the way, it's "didn't I?", not "didn't it?"]

Re: Mixed Conditionals

just the truth — Tue, 01 Feb 2005 02:18:37 GMT

1. If he would have brought the beer, I would have brought the meat.

2. If you would assist us in this matter, we would be most grateful.

3. If you would have assisted us at that time, we would have been most grateful.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hello JT

Your sentence #2 doesn't contain 'would have', which I specified.

Your sentences #1 and #3 should be rewritten with 'had' in place of 'would have', for the reason I gave before: 'would have' in such structures expresses the unreal consequence of a
condition, not the condition itself.

That's the reason it's 'incorrect'.

Hello, Mr P.

Sentence 2, with is simply showing now with a future expectation. It's the same . The other two, 1 & 3 just show a past but the use of is fully grammatical in both. They can be paraphrased as,

"Had you been willing". It's not the statement of fact that, shows. It's an expression that discusses/refers to the modal meaning of 'willingness'. Change the intonational pattern that you are likely locked into and you'll see the meaning as willingness.

I suggest that the reason you've given is faulty for we find that modal can operate in the same way.

1. If I could go, then I would go.

2. If I could have gone, then I would have gone.

Even 3., while not common, is possible.

3. If I could have gone, then I could have gone.

Substituting 'had' takes away the emotive feeling put there by the modal verbs. If modal can be used then there are no grammatical reasons to exclude . There are semantic reasons that do exclude modals from some collocations but that's got to do with meaning/semantics, not grammar.

Not worrying about these errant prescriptions is what has, what still causes all these problems.