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

Re: could have done or were able

CalifJim — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:14:37 GMT

Anonymous
Why do you think the tutorial on modal verbs at the Englishpage.com gave this as part of the whole showing how the modal 'could' be used?

Because it's part of an explanation of the use of 'could'???

I fail to see the relevance of the question. Or maybe I don't understand the question. To know the reasons those examples were given you would have to ask the people at Englishpage.com.

Anonymous
There seems to be no mention of general ability here.

You mean "here in the explanation found at Englishpage.com" I assume. Well, yes, that's true. There seems to be no mention of that. Is that a problem? Did you think that there should have been a mention of it?

What is your definition of "general ability"? Do you not think that 'could' brings in the idea of general ability in I could speak Chinese when I was a kid? To me that seems to be a general ability, but maybe you see it differently.

____

(That site takes essentially the same viewpoint that I do in this thread.)

Re: could have done or were able

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:44:18 GMT

Hi, Why do you think the tutorial on modal verbs at the Englishpage.com gave this as part of the whole showing how the modal 'could' be used? There seems to be no mention of general ability here.

could
past ability

I could run ten miles in my twenties.

I could speak Chinese when I was a kid.

"Could" cannot be used in positive sentences in which you describe a momentary or one-time ability.

Yesterday, I could lift the couch by myself. Not Correct

I couldn't run more than a mile in my twenties.

I couldn't speak Swahili.

"Could" can be used in negative sentences in which you describe a momentary or one-time ability.

Yesterday, I couldn't lift the couch by myself. Correct

be able to

Can and could uses

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:07:08 GMT

Hi, Let us pretend I have a group of people in a room playing a game called "20 Questions." There is a picture card with its face hidden from the view of the people but only one person who is sitting in front of the room knows what the picture card is and he/she is going to respond to many types of questions. Could these work as questions?

(let you know what the picture card is: It's a watch)

Questions from people in the room:

Can you hold it?
Can you buy in a typical neighborhood store?
Can you carry it with you?

What does the modal verb 'can' denote -- possibility or ability or both (a little bit of both??)? I think I read/saw it in the Englishpage.com website at its tutorial on modal verbs that 'can' usually works to denote possibility in cases involving supposition and generalization. Does that mean the use of 'can' is usually limited to those uses? Do you think the use of 'could' to denote possibility is more wide -- possibly covers most of the situations we might encounter in the writing situations?

Could I use the word 'could' for those questions? I think not, it would change meaning. Agree? It's not like a pollite request, I think.

Could you hold it?
Could you buy in a typical neighborhood store?
Could you carry it with you?

Possibility: can and could

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 04:13:00 GMT

Hi,
I think I was looking at the Englishpage.com website for help on modal verb use and I think in the tutorial on it, I saw something like the modal "can" is usually used for a generalization and a supposition. Does that mean the modal "can" is limited in the possibility department than the modal "could" in the same function -- possibility?

Unlike "can" can "could" prevail for virtually all types of situations including situations involving suppositions and suppositions?

Re: "have + to" versus "have + object + to + V"

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 01:32:14 GMT

MrPedantic

MrP is saying that the "subjective/objective" distinction is fallacious: every obligation is naturally a combination of subjective and objective requirements.

MrP

Yes, we all know about reality, but we are talking about language use. Does the speaker, when choosing a modal verb, wish to indicate that "every obligation is naturally a combination of subjective and objective requirements"? If the speaker wishes to indicate the source of the obligation, what does he/she do?

two questions

Anonymous — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:26:36 GMT

Hi,
1.Do we almost always have to follow the question word (I think it is) "why" with a modal verb like "do" or an auxiliary verb like "was" when writing questions? Are there some exceptions?

Why are they smart? Why do they do smart things?

2. How would you explain the existenc "under" before "which"? Under the constant images?

This is one of the most costant images under which the blissfulness of the good people is represented.

Re: The word would

Fandorin — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:33:35 GMT

Yes. Person who has said that believes that he (who is going to be a father) will be a good father. Would is a modal verb. Would has pretty enough modal's contrasts which can express insistence, wish, probability, polite request and preference.

Re: mY cONFusION

CalifJim — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:46:04 GMT

First of all, they aren't sentences. You need to complete the thought to have sentences.

For example,

I would have sent you a letter is a sentence.

Secondly, reply can't be used in the passive. There is no such thing as be replied. You'll have to change the verb. Let's say,

I would have been seen.

______

That said, would have sent and would have been seen are verb phrases. The first is active; the second is passive. would is a modal verb.

I is a subject pronoun.

Other than that, I don't know what you need in terms of describing the structure.

Re: Need we say more?

Jackson6612 — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:30:44 GMT

Hi CB,

Cool Breeze
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?

Cool Breeze
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)?

Cool Breeze
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 different definitions. Can both say and to say be called infinitives? In the below given quoted text you have used two different definitions of infinitive, say is an infinitive and to say is also an infinitive.

Cool Breeze
To is normally used before an infinitive after a verb: I want to say it. As need is not an auxiliary in an affirmative clause, to is neededbefore a verb after it: I need to say it.

Cool Breeze
To is normally not used before an infinitive after a defective/modal auxiliary verb: I will/may/could/should say it.

What is defective/modal auxiliary verb?

Sorry for asking you too many questions. I hope you will give a touch to all the above questions.

Thanks,
Jackson

Re: intransitive verb

Anonymous — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:10:24 GMT

Thank you very much. What I am not sure is if we can use modal verbs like 'could', 'would', 'must' and 'can' in front of an intransitive verb? I think it could but I am too familiar with it since I havent' been using the constructions like that many times.

So, all these are possible with modals doing what they are supposed to do?

has vanished/surfaced would have vanished/surfaced could have vanished/surfaced must have vanished/surfaced

Also, can we use intransitive verbs as an adjective?

a long-vanished cultural misconception

an abruptly surfaced lutus flower