Search results for 'tag:Modal verbs tag:Semantic meanings' matching tags 'Modal verbs' and 'Semantic meanings'

Re: Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries

milky — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 04:27:55 GMT

1. You shall write out 100 times, "I must not misuse modal verbs". ('shall' = command)

According to my perception of the present situation, it is, if it's anything to do with me, inevitable that ...
2. Shall I see who it is at the door? ('shall' = simple futurity)

Shall = According to your perception of the present situation, is it, if it's anything to do with you, inevitable that ... ?

3. I can and I will. ('will' = determination)

When will you?

Re: Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries

MrPedantic — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 22:01:15 GMT

If we accept for a moment the 'inevitability' core definition of 'will', how do we treat 'shall', when used as a first person alternative for 'will' (e.g. #2 below)? and does the 'core definition' apply also to the non-simple-future uses of 'will' (e.g. #3 below)?

1. You shall write out 100 times, "I must not misuse modal verbs". ('shall' = command)
2. Shall I see who it is at the door? ('shall' = simple futurity)
3. I can and I will. ('will' = determination)
4. She'll be back soon. ('will' = simple futurity)

MrP

Re: Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries

Roro — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 16:14:52 GMT

Must = I assert that it is necessary that ...
Will = Given my perception of the immediate situation, it is inevitable that ...
There is a closeness between many of the modal verbs in their semantic meaning.
Do you find one between the two modals above?

Yes, and this brings up the point : .

For me, if there's some difference, it could be expressed roughly as ... :

= the speaker assert that it is necessary in every possible situation that ...
= the speaker assert that given his perception of the immediate situation is right, it is inevitable that ...

Re: Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries

milky — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:54:47 GMT

Sorry, Roro. I was using "one" anaphorically (now there's a nice word) to refer to "a closeness" in the previous sentence.

There is a closeness between many of the modal verbs in their semantic meaning. Do you find one between the two modals above?

There is a closeness between many of the modal verbs in their semantic meaning. Do you find a closeness between the two modals above?

Do you find a closeness of meaning between the epistemic uses of must and will?

Re: Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries

milky — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:41:17 GMT

Must = I assert that it is necessary that ...

Will = Given my perception of the immediate situation, it is inevitable that ...

There is a closeness between many of the modal verbs in their semantic meaning. Do you find one between the two modals above?

Re: Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries

milky — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:58:50 GMT

But don't we then have the same problem with 'I will be the one'?

It seems to me that if the paraphrases of modal verbs contain modal verbs, we end up with circular references. >

Hey, would you rather paraphrase modal statement with non-modal language?

"I'll do it for you".

It's inevitable that I AM the one carrying out the task if you accept my offer, isn't it?

Don't forget that will is also a future marker. The "am" above does not clearly mark a future event.

Tell me how to indicate the future action I will inevitably carry out if the addressee accepts my offer of help - without using a modal, of course. Please, go ahead.

Re: Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries

MrPedantic — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:55:10 GMT

"I'll do it for you".

It's inevitable that I will be the one carrying out the task if you accept my offer, isn't it?

But don't we then have the same problem with 'I will be the one'?

It seems to me that if the paraphrases of modal verbs contain modal verbs, we end up with circular references.

MrP

Re: Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries

MrPedantic — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 06:53:13 GMT

Hello Milky

I'm happy to accept your adjustment â I used 'you go' in my original because it would have seemed strange to define phrase A by embedding it in phrase B.

So now we have:

1. 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'.

Only my personal reaction, of course; as other threads in this section have shown, background and dialect seem to play a large part in the interpretation of modal verbs.

MrP