http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=tag%3aModal+AuxiliariesSearch results for 'tag:Modal Auxiliaries' matching tag 'Modal Auxiliaries'en-USXMOD (Build: 3616.28671)http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheInversionQuestionsQuestionWord-Questions/lkxxv/post.htm#972387Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:33:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:972387cool breezeDo/does/did is not used in questions 1. with forms of to be : Is he happy? Were they swimming? 2. with perfect and past perfect auxiliaries : Have you seen him? Had it already begun? 3. sometimes with have/has/had when the verb is in the presnt tense, in other words, the finite verb: Have you money? This usage seems to be slowly disappearing and is seldom used these days, especially in AmE. It's far more common to say: Have you got money? / Do you have money? If have does not mean "to possess", do/does/did must always be used: Did you have your house painted? Why does he have to go there? 4. If an interrogative pronoun is the subject or a part of the subject of a clause, do/does/did is not used: What...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatTenseIsThisSentenceIn/lvkpr/post.htm#941828Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:39:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:941828cool breezeThey had to have that specially made? The sentence is in the past tense. Since English lacks verbs for situations in which person A does something for person B on person B's request, a rather long and awkward structure is used instead: to have something done . Have is the finite verb, in other words, the verb that shows tense . The past participle has absolutely nothing to do with tense as it is always required regardless of the tense. Other examples of the same structure in various tenses: Present tense: He has his house painted every five years. Past tense: He had his house painted last week. Present perfect: He has had his house painted twice. Past perfect/Pluperfect: He had had his house painted needlessly. Present...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WillPastProgressive/kwjdz/post.htmThu, 27 Aug 2009 17:29:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:877171guzhao67Hello; the following text was taken from a grammar book, and i can't see the point the author wanted to convey. "Other uses of the progressive aspect It may be used especially following the auxiliary will or shall with the special implication that the action will take place 'as a matter of course' in the future: I'll be seeing you next week. Note: 'The 'matter-of-course' implication of will or shall with the progressive is also found with other modal auxiliaries, and possibly also with the past progressive in conversational contexts; eg: I was talking to Anne, and she was telling me that the job is still vacant. In contrast to the simple past talked and told , the progressive here suggests a casual...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ModalAuxiliaries/jkwbg/post.htm#803207Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:22:57 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:803207mister micawber'Can' is not polite except with family or close friends. 'Would' is quite polite in all situations.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ModalAuxiliaries/jkwbg/post.htmThu, 02 Jul 2009 11:35:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:803154anonymouswhat is the differences of can and would as a modal auxiliary which have a fuction as a polite request?http://www.englishforums.com/English/ModalAuxiliariesGrammatical-Moods/jrvpl/post.htm#753794Fri, 29 May 2009 07:25:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:753794cool breezeIt is advisable to learn the various ways of using the modal auxiliaries without thinking of grammatical moods at the same time. These auxiliaries lack forms ( must has only one form, for example) and the potential mood, as it exists in some languages, is nonexistent in English. However, auxiliaries such as may and can can be used to convey thoughts that are expressed using the potential mood in other languages. It is perfectly possible, though, that in many cases can may be translated into your native language using the indicative mood. Some auxiliaries are used in conditional sentences, some aren't. The subjunctive is normally formed without modal auxiliaries in English but it is possible that you have to translate some modal...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ModalAuxiliariesGrammatical-Moods/jrvpl/post.htmThu, 28 May 2009 19:17:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:753111khnnoufahello can i used the modal auxiliaries in the other grammatical moods (conditional,pottential,subjunctive,..) beside the master mood the indicative mood. thank.http://www.englishforums.com/English/CouldShouldMightAndAbleTo/wdmmw/post.htm#686592Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:07:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:686592alpheccastarsThis lesson shows how to use these words (they are modal auxiliaries) in sentences. If you have more questions after this lesson, just post more specific questions.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Infinitive/wbnhh/post.htm#677286Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:11:23 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:677286cool breezeI have heard that the infinitive can exist without the 'to.' Is this correct? As others have told you, it is correct. More examples and explanations: A 1. Can you speak English? Do you speak English? 2. How dare you say so? (Also: How do you dare to say so?) 3. He need not come . (Also: He doesn't need/have to come.) 1. The plain/bare infinitive (= infinitive without to ) is used in connection with the defective/modal auxiliaries (can, could; shall, should; may, might; will, would; must) and with do, does, did . 2. and 3. The plain infinitive is used with dare and need when these verbs are used in questions and negations without the auxiliary do. B 1. I saw him come /coming. He was...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PresentPerfectPassiveVoice-Adverbs/hmklg/post.htm#646864Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:59:03 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:646864cool breezePassive has nothing to do with it. The so-called adverbs of frequency are usually placed as follows: 1. Before the main verb if it is in the present or past tense: I almost hurt my leg. He seldom smiles. 2. After the present and past tense forms of to be: He is always late. 3. After the defective/modal auxiliaries (can, could; will, would; shall, should; may, might; must; ought): He would never have done it. He may always have known it. 4. After the perfect auxiliaries (have, has; had): He has never been told the truth. They had often said something. 5. After not: They do not/don't always know the right answer. I have not/haven't always liked her. 6. In questions, after the subject : Does he always know the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/NeedWeSayMore/gqqln/post.htm#584837Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:30:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:584837jackson6612Hi CB, To my home has nothing to do with verbs. To is a preposition here. Did I say it had anything to do with verbs? Yes, to is a preposition but to my home functions an infinitive object. Am I wrong? The auxiliary forms of need are used primarily in present-tense questions, negations, and conditional clauses . Why conditional clauses , why not simply conditional sentence(s) ? In other words, auxiliary need is normally not used in affirmative clauses and therefore to is used before the infinitive (to say) . Is auxiliary need and modal need the same thing? should , may , will , etc. are auxiliaries verbs and at the same time modal verbs. Is affirmative clause and assertive clause the same thing? I believe infinitive has...http://www.englishforums.com/English/NamesOfDifferentTenses/gncbg/post.htm#565666Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:58:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:565666cool breezeHe would have had completed the task if he had asked for help before he left work -- would have had completed used for had asked (past perfect) that happens before left (simple past) Is it false then? "would have + (past perfect)" doesn't exist? These terms may not be the same everywhere but the basic grammar of the language is the same all over the Anglo-Saxon world! Would have had completed is always wrong. Would is a defective/modal auxiliary and only an infinitive is possible after these auxiliaries. In this case the perfect infinitive must be used. There are two theoretical alternatives using your verbs. Either would have completed or would have had . All other combinations are wrong. The perfect...http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveSomethingDone/zqcpl/post.htm#497092Sun, 06 Apr 2008 09:49:01 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:497092mister micawber. None of the answers makes sense in this context except C. The other modal auxiliaries carry inappropriate meanings. Start your study HERE, FOR INSTANCE .http://www.englishforums.com/English/MayMight/zmzbd/post.htm#479401Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:34:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:479401yoong liatHi Newguest I have the following to share with you. may / might Similarly, we can use the modal auxiliaries may or might to say that there is a chance that something is true or may happen. May and might are used to talk about present or future events. They can normally be used interchangeably, although might may suggest a smaller chance of something happening. Compare the following: I may go into town tomorrow for the Christmas sales. And James might come with me! What are you doing over the New Year, Ann? ~ Oh, I may go to Scotland, but there again, I might stay at home. If you go to bed early tonight, you may / might feel better tomorrow. If you went to bed early tonight, you might feel better tomorrow. ...http://www.englishforums.com/English/NonFiniteReducedAdverbialClause/gnwp/post.htm#470450Wed, 30 Jan 2008 04:11:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:470450anonymousHello, 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...http://www.englishforums.com/English/MightMightPassiveVersions-Both/3/vndwx/Post.htm#399154Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:53:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:399154cool breezeKilimanjaro 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...http://www.englishforums.com/English/DoBelieveLatinBasedWordsFormal/vmnqv/post.htm#397257Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:20:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:397257milkyLet's not forget that much formality in English is not based on word meanings. We also create fomality by using the past tense of verbs and what are traditionally called the past tense of modal auxiliaries.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ProficiencyAlongsidePoverty/5/vmcnm/Post.htm#396396Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:28:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:396396cool breezeMilky wrote: He has to go and He must go.> Well, I guess that would be part of the mastering part of the language - i.e. the complex part. It's easy for anyone to claim that English is not complex, or is much simpler than many other languages, if he/she avoids talking about mastering the language. I am not avoiding talking about mastering English. I am just being pragmatic and concentrating on what I consider essential. I don't mind it at all if your ideas about the difficulty of English differ from mine and I fully understand that should is an important modal for some of your students. By all means, teach them what is important to them. What surprises me is the fact that because the English modal auxiliaries have...http://www.englishforums.com/English/BeginningDefineDifference/7/vhgvx/Post.htm#378642Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:32:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:378642forbesMilky 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.http://www.englishforums.com/English/BeginningDefineDifference/7/vhgvx/Post.htm#378472Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:28:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:378472milkyWould 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."http://www.englishforums.com/English/GerundsWithTheVerbToBe/vzzbp/post.htm#360179Fri, 04 May 2007 11:40:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:360179charlie_boyCool Breeze wrote: 1) Leaving taps on and using too much water is very bad for the environment. (Easy, 2 gerunds right?) Right. 2) Everyone should be recycling rubbish. Should is a modal auxiliary or a defective auxiliary as these verbs are also called. It is always followed by an infinitive. Be recycling is a present continuous infinitive, and the recycling part is a present participle, not a gerund. a) Anyone who uses private transport when they could be taking the train is wasting energy. The same grammatically as the one above; taking is a present participle, not a gerund. The defective auxiliaries are: can, could; shall, should; will, would; may, might; must and ought . In addition, need and dare are sometimes used...http://www.englishforums.com/English/GerundsWithTheVerbToBe/vzzbp/post.htm#360168Fri, 04 May 2007 10:59:35 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:360168cool breeze1) Leaving taps on and using too much water is very bad for the environment. (Easy, 2 gerunds right?) Right. 2) Everyone should be recycling rubbish. Should is a modal auxiliary or a defective auxiliary as these verbs are also called. It is always followed by an infinitive. Be recycling is a present continuous infinitive, and the recycling part is a present participle, not a gerund. a) Anyone who uses private transport when they could be taking the train is wasting energy. The same grammatically as the one above; taking is a present participle, not a gerund. The defective auxiliaries are: can, could; shall, should; will, would; may, might; must and ought . In addition, need and dare are sometimes used grammatically in the same way as...http://www.englishforums.com/English/EmphaticDo/vvqjb/post.htm#358542Tue, 01 May 2007 12:05:36 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:358542cool breezeThere is no way to use do with a modal auxiliary because do (does, did) requires an infinitive and modals - or defective auxiliaries as I call them - don't have an infinitive. That's one reason they are called 'defective'. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ModalPerfectInfinitiveMeaning/vvrrv/post.htmSat, 21 Apr 2007 14:37:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:353740brummelHello I have trouble explaining modal auxiliaries to German speakers. He must be drunk. to put this into the past = He must have been drunk. She should see the doctor. this into the past = she should have seen the doctor. But .... He can play the piano into the past =? #1. he can have played the piano.... or ...... #2. he could have played the piano..... or....... #3. he could play the piano #1 sounds strange to my English ears. #2 is subjunctive isn't it? #3 seems right but goes against trend with 'must' and 'should' The word 'could' is both the simple past of can AND the subjunctive form of can, but I'm not complaining. It is the only one of 'must', 'should' and 'can' which has a past form. Perhaps...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ClauseAndUseOfTenses/dpkck/post.htm#327613Sun, 11 Feb 2007 09:20:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:327613cool breezeJackson6612 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...http://www.englishforums.com/English/MayMightCouldDifference/2/blvqk/Post.htm#310460Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:40:36 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:310460anonymousOne such grammatical distinction causing much confusion is the use of the modal auxiliaries ‘may’ and ‘might’. 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 hadn’t been so brave, I may not have been rescued , could seem reasonable to some native English speakers, however, the speaker was rescued, and therefore...http://www.englishforums.com/English/Auxiliaries/dkwxh/post.htmSat, 09 Dec 2006 19:32:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:302250anonymousAbout modal auxiliaries .... Do we have some equivalent in Spanish ? how can I learn them ? is there any trick to know the answer ?http://www.englishforums.com/English/WouldAnyoneListUses/dzddr/post.htmWed, 04 Oct 2006 14:42:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:276046ofrienfdragonModal auxiliaries are always difficult for me, for I always find new meanings that cannot be found in my dictionaries, please list all the uses of will ? (not only those common uses ) Waiting................................http://www.englishforums.com/English/ObligationQuestion/dvczc/post.htm#270899Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:24:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:270899milky<My children are required to eat an apple after their meals or My children are obligated to eat an apple after their meals. Sounds rather formal. I'm talking about an everyday conversation. Do you use modal auxiliaries in your day-to-day interactions?http://www.englishforums.com/English/WouldHave/dccpl/post.htm#261473Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:27:51 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:261473marius hancuMilky wrote: <The easy one first: #3 is wrong; two modal auxiliaries cannot co-occur.> Where are the two modal auxiliaries there? Guess MM's talking about the 2 would s: 3) If you would have arriv ed sooner, you would have miss ed the train. Anyway, one can't normally have would in the IF sentence in standard English: http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/061.htmlhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WouldHave/dccpl/post.htm#261387Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:31:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:261387milky<The easy one first: #3 is wrong; two modal auxiliaries cannot co-occur.> Where are the two modal auxiliaries there?http://www.englishforums.com/English/WouldHave/dccpl/post.htm#261380Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:07:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:261380mister micawberThe easy one first: #3 is wrong; two modal auxiliaries cannot co-occur. Change to: if you had arrived sooner, you would have missed the train . (By the way, the meaning seems odd; I would have thought: if you had arrived later , you would have missed the train . Now, #1 and #2: This one continues to trouble me, and if I have ever found or been given a definitive explanation, I have lost or forgotten it. It seems to me that both are acceptable, but with different meanings. If we extrapolate: If I had been there , I would have liked to thank you. I know that from present consideration. Now that I consider it, I would like to have thanked you when I was there . That said, I am sure that I and many other native speakers confuse the two...http://www.englishforums.com/English/IncognizableModals/cqglp/post.htm#247672Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:44:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:247672rvwA grammar book I use lists the following as the modal auxiliaries: can/could may-might will/would shall/should must ought and the following as modal-like auxiliaries: had better have got get (to) have (to) be able be supposed be bound I've never heard of usedn't, or You do not ought to stop smoking. I would say He used to not smoke and You should not stop smoking.http://www.englishforums.com/English/IncognizableModals/cqglp/post.htm#247666Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:21:32 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:247666goodmanInchoateknowledge wrote: there are some oddities I have just dug up in a grammar book and in which you might be interested: Marginal modal auxiliaries: used to, ought to, need, dare used to: He usedn't to smoke. He did not use to smoke. He used to drink, did he not. Did he use to drink? ought to: Ought I to stop smoking? Yes, you ought (to). You oughtn't to stop smoking. You do not ought to stop smoking. dare, need: may act as modals and full verbs. The modal usage is restricted to non-assertive contexts, negatives, to if clauses. I think the grammar book you are using is confusing you more than helping you. In m opinion, I think you will probably beneift more by reading Reader Digest. I never heard people say "usedn't " nor...http://www.englishforums.com/English/IncognizableModals/cqglp/post.htmFri, 21 Jul 2006 09:26:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:247586inchoateknowledgethere are some oddities I have just dug up in a grammar book and in which you might be interested: Marginal modal auxiliaries: used to, ought to, need, dare used to: He usedn't to smoke. He did not use to smoke. He used to drink, did he not. Did he use to drink? ought to: Ought I to stop smoking? Yes, you ought (to). You oughtn't to stop smoking. You do not ought to stop smoking. dare, need: may act as modals and full verbs. The modal usage is restricted to non-assertive contexts, negatives, to if clauses.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PresentPerfectPerfectInfinitive/cpmzk/post.htm#244538Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:19:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:244538cool breezeA. The present perfect in the passive: A new house has been built. Two new houses have been built. B. The perfect infinitive in the passive: The perfect infinitive is usually used with a defective auxiliary (also known as a modal auxiliary). The defective auxiliaries are can, could; will, would; shall, should; may, might; must and ought . With all of these, it is theoretically possible to have the passive auxuliary (to be) in the perfect infinitive (to have been ). The to-particle is used only with ought . Examples: A new house may have been built. A new house should have been built. A new house must have been built. A new house will have been built by the end of the year. In English infinitives are uninflected,...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CorrectlyUnderstandUnderstand-Correctly/cplww/post.htm#244104Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:06:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:244104inchoateknowledgeAdverbs of manner, probability,..., like angrily, fast (not fastly) badly, nicely..., probably, highly likely, may go in front, mid- or end position. I left the room angrily (in a huff): end position If the adverb is the main focus of the sentence: I angrily left the room: front position. If grammatical auxiliaries there are, like have, be..., then it goes like this: I have probably lost my glasses. I am terribly sorry for losing my glasses. This is called mid-position. Or, I probably have lost... . Modal auxiliaries: Before going to work I invariably used to misplace my glasses. "Is this a style issue? " I have probably lost my glasses. I probably have lost my glasses. Sometimes it is. correctly...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThirdConditionalAdverb/ckxqn/post.htm#220539Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:09:51 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:220539marius hancuI think this is the recommended one: -- If I had gone to the supermarket, I would definitely have bought some ham. but others are possible: ---- When there are two or more verb auxiliaries, the adverb usually goes after the first: -- You have definitely been working too hard. But other positions are possible, especially when the first part of the verb phrase is a modal auxiliary. -- She could have easily been killed. OR -- She could easily have been killed. ---http://www.englishforums.com/English/PeriphrasticModels/cwcmn/post.htm#207144Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:08:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:207144paco2004Hello Endi Quirk uses a term "catenative (=chain)" for such verbals. "Appear to", "come to", "fail to", "get to", "manage to", "seem to", "tend to", "turn out to" are examples he gives. They are semantically similar to modal auxiliaries in that they carry a sense of aspect or modality, but structurally similar to common or true verbs in that they take DO support. Verbs like "except (to)", "attempt (to)", and "want (to)" are not categorized as catenative verbs because the to-infinitive to them can be replaced by a NP. (OK) He appeared to attack the burglar. (OK) He attempted to attack the burglar. (NO) He appeared an attack on the burglar. (OK) He attempted an attack on the burglar. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/MayMightCouldDifference/blvqk/post.htm#146049Sun, 09 Oct 2005 05:36:05 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:146049rvwMary Ansell's on-line text, English Grammar: Explanations and Exercises , explains some of the differences among these auxiliaries: 3. Can and Could The modal auxiliary can is most often used in the Simple conjugation. The most important meaning of can and could is to be able to. e.g. He can walk thirty miles a day. When she was young, she could swim across the lake. The first example has the meaning, He is able to walk thirty miles a day. The second example has the meaning, When she was young, she was able to swim across the lake. Like the auxiliary would, could can be used in polite requests and suggestions. e.g. Could you please tell me how to get to Almond Street? You could try asking the bus...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WeaklyConstrainedModalsExpressing-ProbabilityPossibility/bhjrg/post.htm#120555Sat, 23 Jul 2005 06:07:34 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:120555rvwI can only add a little toward the answers to your questions. In general the modal auxiliaries are used to express not statements of fact but actions or events that exist only as conceptions of the mind -- possibilities, potentialities, necessities, wishes, whatever may or may not eventuate in the future... The modals are regularly used in main clauses following conditions contrary to fact. If the condition is contrary to fact, the main statement cannot be actual, hence the modal.... --- Understanding Grammar, by Paul Roberts. A grammar-book-level, but thorough, discussion of the subjunctive mode and modal auxiliaries is in Chapters 8-10 at http://www.fortunecity.com/bally/durrus/153/gramtoc.htmlhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/TreacherousIf/2/bgnmh/Post.htm#118147Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:33:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:118147roro I had been thinking about those sentences for some time but I found myself incompetent. First of all I'm not sure about the distinction between and . Modus Ponens is quite simple. ┌─────────┐ 　　If P, then Q. 　　P. 　　Therefore, Q. └─────────┘ Maybe and ...? I have in mind here only second part of the argument scheme. ---------------------------------------------------------------- I mean: on our previous knowledge about some condition , we can state P or Q with various probabilities. From them we can deduct/abduct Q or P (with less probabilities in most cases), respectively. And in such cases the relation between conditional & modality appears really complicated. But I believe there are quite a few...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ModalsAndSemiModals/bzqmk/post.htm#113095Tue, 28 Jun 2005 01:12:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:113095mister micawberMany sources call them ' semi-modals ', Seyfihoca, though they may be grouped in various ways. “Have to ... though semantically very close to must, has none of the modal properties and is clearly a catenative , not a modal.” (Huddleston, 1984: 165) But for others, such as Palmer, the meanings of have to and other forms including to be going to, to be able to, and would rather make them “ semi-modals ” (Palmer, 1990: 25). The question of which syntactic role these semi-modals have in a sentence is problematic. Are the semi-modals auxiliaries or main verbs? Palmer does not directly address the question, but in a discussion on be bound to, he does make reference to the main verb being a verb of action, suggesting that he sees be...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ModalsAndSemiModals/bzqmk/post.htm#113089Tue, 28 Jun 2005 01:03:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:113089rvwOne reference -- Paul Roberts' Understanding Grammar -- says need has become a sometimes modal auxiliary, while have to, be able to, and be used to are "equivalents of modal auxiliaries." Need was not originally a modal auxiliary, but it has been drawn into the group because of its meaning, which has affinities with must, should, ought. It now fluctuates between the modal and the regular verb forms: -He need only ask for what he wants. -He needs only ask. -He needs only to ask. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- English has developed a number of verbs and verb phrases which, though they do not exhibit the formal characteristics of the modals, serve as auxiliaries to express...http://www.englishforums.com/English/TenseUsed/bzhvj/post.htm#110191Sat, 18 Jun 2005 03:08:04 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110191roroHi milky. (Have you given up our discussion on modal auxiliaries?) Tense is used for more than just time I think it's a good point. Quine once said: Our ordinary language shows a tiresome bias in its treatment of time. Relations of date are exalted grammatically (..). This bias is of itself an inelegance, or breach of theoretical simplicity. Moreover, the form it takes ??that of requiring that every verb form show a tense??is peculialy productive of needless complications, since it demands lip service to time even when time is farthest from our thoughts. (Quine1960:170) Seems you shares your view with Quine, don't you? I can understand now Quine's statement. Granted that his and your point make good sense,...http://www.englishforums.com/English/BasicSemanticMeaningsModal-Auxiliaries/3/bvkvj/Post.htm#106579Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:39:22 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:106579mrpedanticThat's because you are trying to imagine it as said by someone. we are only trying to find perceptual paraphrases to help us learn modal auxiliaries. Hmm. In that case, I find this difficult to accept as a paraphrase of 'you will go' : 1. Given my perception of the immediate situation, it is inevitable that you will go. Isn't it necessary to know what 'you will go' means, before you can understand the paraphrase? Otherwise, substituting one for the other, it seems to regress infinitely: 2. Given my perception of the immediate situation, it is inevitable that (given my perception of the immediate situation, it is inevitable that (given my perception of the immediate situation, it is inevitable that... MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/BasicSemanticMeaningsModal-Auxiliaries/2/bvkvj/Post.htm#106547Wed, 08 Jun 2005 09:19:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:106547roro... thank you, milky! you're an English teacher, right ...? (I'm not good at English, and I always use these modal auxiliary verbs in my own way, as I like it ! I've got great help from your discussion.) You've asked: Umm ...on the speaker's intention , I'd say. And at the very least, this doesn't fit so well in the definition of will , . # She insists that she will be a doctor. (She states her intention here.) # (From what I gather, in the natural course of events) I insist that she will be a good doctor. You've pointed out that . Yes, actually I didn't pay much attention to this. Let me think it over.http://www.englishforums.com/English/BasicSemanticMeaningsModal-Auxiliaries/2/bvkvj/Post.htm#106528Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:33:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:106528milky1. Given my perception of the immediate situation, it is inevitable that you will go. 2. You will go. Now I have a different problem, though. The first sentence now reads like a 'highly qualified' version of sentence two. If someone said it to me, I would interpret it as a curious mixture of caution and fatalism; and if I had to remodulate it, I would be even more inclined to take it as a milk-and-water version of 'I think you must go'. > That's because you are trying to imagine it as said by someone. we are only trying to find perceptual paraphrases to help us learn modal auxiliaries. In life, "You will go to the party" is often enough. Indeed they do, but my job is to teach the standard form of English, or as close to...http://www.englishforums.com/English/BasicSemanticMeaningsModal-Auxiliaries/bvkvj/post.htmMon, 06 Jun 2005 19:31:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:106140milkyIn his chapter on modal auxiliaries in The English Verb, Michael Lewis lists what he thinks are the basic semantic meanings for each. I cite those meanings below and ask if you agree with them. Please remember, we are talking about the basic semantic meaning. In context, these auxiliaries take on wider meanings, but it is the basic meaning I want to discuss. Paraphrased. Can = I assert that it is possible that ... Could = I assert that it is "remotely" possible that ... May = If I have anything to do with it, it is possible that ... Might = If I have anything to do with it, it is "remotely" possible that ... Must = I assert that it is necessary that ... Will = Given my percepton of the immediate situation, it is...http://www.englishforums.com/English/HowWouldYouSay/3/bbnhn/Post.htm#93102Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:51:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:93102just the truthThe Grammar Book ... in English modal auxiliaries (can, may, shall,will, etc.) are distinguished from other auxilairy verbs (be, have, do) as well as from ordinary verbs by their lack of tense ... In English, modals are derived from verbs that DID carry tense and take agreement markers during a much earlier stage of the language. ... It is important to emphasize to learners that English no longer inflects modals for tense or number . {emphasis added is mine}