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

Re: we could hear if anyone came along the trail.

CalifJim — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:55:03 GMT

New2grammar
The fire was raging toward us. Fortunately, there was a river separating us from it. It would have had to jumped across the river to get to us. "Would have" (Third conditional) suggests the fire didn't get to us. ... What do you think?

I'm not sure what you would like me to comment on, so I'll offer some random remarks that may or may not touch on your concerns.

Note, in particular, the so ... that ... structure in the original (It was so quiet that ... ) is a complicating factor.

Secondly, the semi-modal have to in your newest example (It would have had to ...) is another complicating factor.

Lastly, your sentence with would have isn't a very clear-cut case of a third conditional. There's no if-clause. Perhaps the conditional idea can be made explicit thus, however:

If the fire had got to us, it would have had to do so by jumping across the river.

Or did you mean to focus on this one?

If the fire had jumped across the river, it would have got to us.

Do you see how ambiguous things can get?

This third conditional certainly suggests the fire didn't get to us. But it seems to me that you are adding the claim that the same sentence implies that the fire could never have gotten to us, even after the time referred to in the sentence. This is incorrect. The third conditional sets up a past point of view. It states something true of some past moment in time, with no implications for what happened after that past moment.

Uttered at 6 pm focusing on the state of the world at 3 pm: If the fire had jumped across the river (before 3pm), it would have got to us (by 3 pm).

This says that the fire hadn't jumped across the river by 3 pm. But note that nothing is said about the time after 3 pm, and it is now 6 pm. Three hours are still unaccounted for, not to mention the infinity of future time after 6 pm. It is not inconsistent, therefore, to add this (also at 6 pm):

But fire fighters built a temporary bridge across the river to help them fight the fire. The bridge itself caught fire at 4pm, and the fire jumped across the river by means of this bridge, endangering all of us on our side of the river as well (by 5 pm).

________

To relate this to a previous example:

It was so quiet that if someone had come along the trail, we would/could have heard them.

At the time of the quiet referred to here, no one had yet come along the trail. That's the counterfactual part. But it's also the least important part of this particular sentence. The implication is that, continuing through time after the description of the quiet, the same relationship continued in effect between the possibility of someone coming along the trail and our being able to hear this coming along the trail. The statement does not imply that no one ever came along the trail after the point in time when things were so quiet. Nor does it imply that someone did come along the trail, either.

Re: Follow-up to "Nagging conditional problem"

Marius Hancu — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:48:15 GMT

>I thihk the modal 'could' and possibly 'would' have some differing uses.

could: about ability, would: about willingness

Anonymous
Thank you.

Would you say these are examples of any of traditional (?) first, or second, or third conditional or any of the acceptable variants thereof? I have been rubbing my eyes for any clues as to their relevance or relationship to the traditional (?) first, or second, or third conditional but they seem to be fleeting from me at best.

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

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

The first is a mixed conditional, similar to what you can find on this page:

http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/mixedconditional.html

This is one of the best sites, learn whatever you find there. Forget about strict classifications (1st, 2nd), I don't remember them.

The 2nd is a replacement using should.

If you want one of the "classical patterns," you could use:

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

which is also NOT about the past, but about present/future and is a 2nd conditional as in:

http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-conditional_3.htm

and would be more doubtful, more formal and more polite (use of the past tense for a present time condition, which is called distancing) than

If you happen to have

but I wanted to correct/use the original pattern of tenses, which are to be found in the original thread.

Re: Analysis sentence

Clive — Wed, 07 May 2008 12:10:28 GMT

Hi,

Sentence A . It takes all sorts ( to make a world ) ( saying ) used to say that you think somebody's behaviour is very strange or unusual but that everyone is different and likes different things. ( Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary [ 7 th edition ] ).

it takes all sorts ( to make a world ) ( saying ) - subject / main clause

used to - modal verb

say - verb

used to say - I'd call it 'a verbal phrase'.

that you think somebody' behaviour is very strange or unusual - subordinate clause / noun clause

but - a conjunction, joining subordinate clauses.

that everyone is different and likes different things. - subordinate clause / noun clause

Hello Grammar Teacher/Teachers,

1. I have attempted partly, could you help me to break down Sentence A into clauses, phrases and so on ?

2. What is the part of speech of the underlined word ,' but '?

Could you define the underlined word,' but ' as well ? nevertheless, on the other hand.

Best wishes, Clive

Analysis sentence

bhikkhu1991 — Wed, 07 May 2008 08:36:16 GMT

it takes all sorts ( to make a world ) ( saying ) - subject / main clause

used to - modal verb

say - verb

used to say - ?

that you think somebody' behaviour is very strange or unusual - subordinate clause / noun clause

but - ?

that everyone is different and likes different things. - subordinate clause / noun clause

Hello Grammar Teacher/Teachers,

1. I have attempted partly, could you help me to break down Sentence A into clauses, phrases and so on ?

2. What is the part of speech of the underlined word ,' but '?

Could you define the underlined word,' but ' as well ?

Thank you.

With best wishes.

"might have done" and other modals

Viceidol — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 08:31:44 GMT

I saw a sentence in my grammar book: By the end of this year I might have saved some money.

So I was wondering if we could use other modals to replace "might". Like:

By the end of this year I could have saved some money.

By the end of this year I may have saved some money.

By the end of this year I might have saved some money.

By the end of this year I should have saved some money.

By the end of this year I would have saved some money.

By the end of this year I will have saved some money.

By the end of this year I must have saved some money.

May I ask if we can use all of them? Thank you very much for answering my question.

Re: "should" in subordinate clauses

Marius Hancu — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:16:11 GMT

CalifJim
Palmer (The English Verb) calls this 'evaluative' should. It has the same meaning as when the non-modal form is used, according to Palmer.
I'm surprised that you [should be / are] so foolish.

George Curme doesn't seem to agree with Palmer:

The past subjunctive is often used instead of the present indicative since the abstract principle is felt as more important than the concrete fact:

I regard it as the saddest of things that a man should be allowed to bring up his son in that way.

A Grammar of the English Language, by George Curme, vol II, p. 417
--

and Curme's very detailed on the subjunctive.

What's the meaning of "ought to be doing"?

Viceidol — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:25:07 GMT

Hi, everyone. I'm studying modals recently. I have a doubt about "ought to be doing". My grammar book says "ought to be doing" means "someone is not doing what he/she is supposed to do" in an affirmative sentence or "someone is doing what he/she isn't supposed to do" in an negative sentence. For example:

He ought not to be spending all his time on the TV. He should study for his exam.

We ought to be wearing seat belts, but we are not.

My question is: Does "ought to be doing" only has this meaning? Could it serve other function as well?

I hope you could tell me if there is any, thank you for your help!

Re: Using "would" to make questions

Viceidol — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:21:02 GMT

Thank you for your explanation,Marius Hancu, Jim. Now I really unserstand what is all about between these modals. Indeed, just like Jim said "would" is probably the most difficult word in English to explain, because all my grammar books never mention the thing you've said. If it wouldn't have been your help, I wouldn't have understand these modals. Thank you.

Re: Please check out these sentences for me (modal+have done)

Creativeguru — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:36:46 GMT

follow the link to understand topic in detail

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv195.shtml

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