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

Re: You need only see her. (Is this correct?)

Tanit — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:05:30 GMT

Viceidol

Hi, I know that auxiliary verb "need" cannot be used in affirmative statements, but how about this one? Is this correct?
You need only see her.

Hi,

Let me quote Swann (Practical English Usage, 3^rd ed., Â§ 366.2):

Need can also have the same present-tense forms as modal auxiliary verbs ... In this case, need is normally followed by an infinitive without to.
        She needn't reserve a seat - there'll be plenty of room.
These forms are used mainly in negative sentences (needn't), but they are also possible in questions, after if and in other 'non-affirmative' structures.
        You needn't fill in a form.
        Need I fill in a form?
        I wonder if I need fill in a form.
        This is the only form you need fill in. (BUT NOT ~~You need fill in a form~~.)

If we follow Swann, we can use need as a modal verb in an affirmative sentence when a 'non-affirmative' word (such as only, hardly, seldom etc.) gives the sentence a negative kind of meaning. Look at Swann's last example: the sentence becomes incorrect when only is removed.

That said, please notice this usage is mainly British.

Re: Modal verb Used to, understood?

Cool Breeze — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:23:21 GMT

Hi Eladio

You have a mathematical mind! Congratulations! In addition to what CalifJim and MrP have said, I would like to add a couple of comments. In one of your sentences not is in the wrong place:

"Shall not we ever get used to this house?"

Not can't be after a defective/modal auxiliary (shall) in a negative question unless it is contracted (shan't). Say:

Shall/will we not ever get used to this house? Or, better still:

Shan't/won't we ever get used to this house? / Shall/will we never get used to this house?

Secondly, used to need not indicate habitual action in the past. It is frequently used with verbs such as live and like:

He used to live here when he was a teenager.

The meaning is the same as: He lived here when he was a teenager.

Another example: I used to like the way she dressed in those days.

Cheers

Re: Modal verbs

milky — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:47:21 GMT

Statement: "Must" is about subjective necessity and "have to" about objective necessity.

If so, why can't we use "must" in the past?

-Remember that "must" is a full modal verb and "have to" is not.

-Remember also that all 9 core modals, are used to express the speaker's (or listener's) judgement at the moment of speaking. They are grounded in the present. They can therefore be paraphrased as "in the present circumstances, my judgement is that it is possible/necessary/desirable that...":

-Remember, again, "have to" is not a full modal.

Remember too:

must = subjective necessity

have to = objective necessity

-There is little difference between "I have to catch a plane at six" and "I must catch a plane at six" , but the former can be paraphrased as "It is necessary for me to catch the six o'clock" and the latter as "In the present circumstances, I see it as necessary to catch the six o'clock".

The closeness of meaning will always be the case where "I" is the subject, but with other subjects, the difference is clearer:

He must have his haircut.

He has to have his hair cut.

-------------

-So, how does all this explain the use of "had to" to replace "must" in past referential sentences such as these?

I must catch the six o'clock

I had to catch the six o'clock.

Traditionally, commentators, teachers, and the like have stated that "had to" is the past form of both "have/has to" and "must". But English modals don't really have a past form that only refers to past action or states.

If a speaker looks back on a past event and refers to necessity, that necessity will be objective, not the subjective necessity of "in the present circumstances" expressed by the full modal auxiliary. Talking of tomorrow, I can say "I must catch the six o'clock", but referring factually to yesterday, when the necessity is objectified, I had to catch the six o'clock will be obligatory.

So, remember:

"Must" is a full modal and modals are grounded in the present.

"Have to" is not a full modal.

must = subjective necessity

have to = objective necessity

Re: Modal verb and Auxiliary

Anonymous — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:32:34 GMT

You call them differently because they are different.

Auxiliary verbs (also called Primary auxiliary verbs - to be, to have and to do) form tenses and show Aspect. They can also be lexical verbs and they can be inflected. Modal auxiliary verbs do not change form and they add modality to the lexical verb.

Both, auxiliary verbs and modal verbs are helping verbs

Re: Modals and semi-modals

Mister Micawber — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 01:12:09 GMT

Many sources call them 'semi-modals', Seyfihoca, though they may be grouped in various ways.

âHave to ... though semantically very close to must, has none of the modal properties and is clearly a catenative [verbs with verbal complements, like want to], not a modal.â (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 âsemi-modalsâ (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 bound to as an auxiliary (Palmer, 1990). Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman (1983: 83) note that periphrastic modals (the semi-modals ending with to) âbehave syntactically more like main verbs than do modalsâ, but a footnote at the bottom of the same page seems to suggest that they still consider periphrastic modals to be auxiliaries. They also note that âStructurally, have to is not truly a periphrastic modal since it requires do support .... In other words, have to looks like a verb and behaves very much like a periphrastic form in many contexts. Thus we have treated it like one.â (1983: 81).

Many of the semi-modals behave oddly. Used to often takes do support (Did you use to live in New York?), while need sometimes acts as a proper modal auxiliary (you neednât come) and sometimes as a semi-modal requiring do (you donât need to come). Had better shows the formal characteristics of modal verbs (no -s, no non-finite form, no chaining with other modals), but the presence of better makes treating it as a modal verb problematic, to say the least.

It appears that the semi-modals are hybrid forms, combining characteristics of both main verbs and auxiliary verbs. It also appears that the category is defined by the semantic functions of its members, not their formal qualities. This is important because it suggests that there is no necessary main verb or auxiliary verb characteristic that all semi-modals must share. In other words, students need to calibrate the individual structural characteristics of the semi-modals since each semi-modal has its own combination of main verb and auxiliary verb characteristics. They also need to learn when and how to substitute semi-modals for modal auxiliaries, and to be aware for the subtle changes of meaning these substitutions sometimes indicate.

Re: Question on using the word 'better'

pemmican — Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:01:29 GMT

I was a bit confused myself in the beginning becuase I thought that modals were just
can, could; may, might; will, would; must; shall, should.

These verbs are the "classical" modals, but every verb that expresses/describes the modus of a full verb is a modal verb:

I may go e.g. means I have the allowance to go (not: I do go, which would be indicative)
I must leave means I have to leave (not: I do leave)
-> here you can see that "can" and "must" express the mode of the full verbs go, and leave.

The same is still true for the substitutes of the classic modals:
"to have to" for must: I have to leave
"to be allowed to" for may: I'm allowed to go
-> These substitutes are still modals as they also express the modal character of a (full) verb.

Also "had better" expresses a modus of special full verb:
I had better go means the same as I should go (not: I do go).

All these verbs are also called "modal auxiliaries", which is a much better term:
The special modus, the full verbs are in (can go = having the ability to go; must go: having the necessity to go, etc.) is NOT expressed by an inflection of the particular verb itself (as it is done in indicative [he goes] and subjunctive mode [he were]), there is no extra paradigm for these modes, so helping verbs are necessary to express these special forms.

It's a bit difficult to explain this, but I hope I could do it properly

Re: Word order - Maybe and be

taiwandave — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:58:22 GMT

All of your sentences are correct. The choice of where to position the "maybe" is one of style rather than grammatical necessity.

If style is what you'd like to improve on, I would suggest getting rid of the "was...maybe" structure altogether:

He saw something that may have been a ghost.
It may have been a ghost.

Note that "maybe" is an adverb. It means "perhaps". In the above, I've switched to using the modal verb "may" plus "have been", which is the perfect infinitive of the verb "be".

We often use a modal verb plus a perfect infinitive to speculate about the past, draw conclusions about the past, or when talking about the unreal past. Here are some more examples:

He had to have been there. (speculation about the past)
It couldn't have worked. (conclusion about the past)
You should have tried the fish. (unreal past)

It's worth noting that many people, including native speakers, confuse "maybe" and "may be". For example:

The typhoon may be here tomorrow. (correct)
The typhoon maybe here tomorrow. (wrong)
Maybe the typhoon will be here tomorrow. (correct)

In the first sentence, "may" is a modal auxiliary. It is followed by the bare present infinitive of the main verb, which is "be".

In the third sentence, "maybe" is an adjective meaning "perhaps". We could just as easily say:

Perhaps the typhoon will be here tomorrow.

So, the best test of which is correct in a given sentence, "maybe" or "may be", is to try substituting "perhaps". If the sentence still makes sense and retains the original meaning, then "maybe" is correct.