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

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: "has to" as a helping verb?

CalifJim — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 05:58:51 GMT

Yes, you're right. Apparently we do have different understandings of objective and subjective. But look at the bright side: We agree that the sentences do not illustrate deontic usage!

On this whole topic I am in basic agreement with John Lyons, who, to say it as briefly as possible, proceeds (in Semantics) as follows.

First, he gives definitions of terms and examples of an epistemic and a deontic reading of a sentence, to introduce the topic. Then he says, "Various terms have been used by linguists to distinguish [the epistemic reading] from [the deontic reading]. Kurylowicz (1964) would say that [the epistemic reading] involves subjectivity (i.e., the expression of the speaker's attitude), whereas [the deontic reading] does not."

Lyons then says that he will draw a distinction between subjective and objective epistemic modality. And that "when we take up the discussion of deontic modality, we shall see that a similar distinction can also be drawn between subjective and objective deontic modality." A little later in the discussion, he summarizes with "The fact that both epistemic and deontic modality can be interpreted either subjectively or objectively means that Kurylowicz's account of the distinction between epistemic and deontic modality cannot be correct, ..."

Actually, I'm not particularly interested in whether Kurylowicz is correct or not. I'm interested more in the fact that the linguistics experts disagree about how terms like "subjective" and "objective" apply to modality. When there is no uniform approach agreed to in the literature, and when some authors, like Lyons, see the subjective/objective polarity applying to both epistemic and deontic modality, then I conclude for myself personally that the use of the terms "subjective" and "objective" are not likely to advance the cause of students' understanding of modal verbs. I consciously avoid such terminology when discussing modals with students. I do like "epistemic" and "deontic", however, and there is much more agreement in the literature about what these terms mean. But even then, I use the words "modals of logic" and "modals of social interaction" instead of the fancy theoretical terms when speaking to students about these verbs.

CJ
PS. It's not necessary to quote everything in every previous post of the thread before responding!

Re: "has to" as a helping verb?

MrPedantic — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:20:14 GMT

Hello Anon

The verb "have" in your sentence acts as a modal verb. As a modal verb, it takes an infinitive:

1. She eats salad every day. ] A simple statement about a regular occurrence.

2. She has to eat salad every day. ] We now learn something about the eating: it's something she's compelled to do.

When "have" acts as a modal verb, the pronunciation is slightly different:

3. She has to eat salad] the S in "has" is a hissing noise.

4. She has eaten the salad ] the s in "has" sounds like a Z.

5. We have to eat salad every day ] the V in "have" sounds like an F.

6. We have eaten the salad ] the V sounds like the v in "love".

MrP

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