In Modals^x, British English^x, Verbs^x

Hello all, Modal verbs such as would, should, could are common usage in british english, and besides sounding polite, is there another grammatical reason for it? Thank you.

CalifJim wrote: Operators are the modals, forms of be , and forms of do or have when these are not the main verb. This means Operators are the modals, all forms of be in any circumstances, main verb or not, and do or have when these ( do and have ) are not the main verb. It is...

Operators are the modals, forms of be , and forms of do or have when these are not the main verb. This means Operators are the modals, all forms of be in any circumstances, main verb or not, and do or have when these ( do and have ) are not the main verb. It is American usage...

Re: The tenseless modals verbs of English Posted: 13/02/2005 09:52 PM JTT wrote: Every modal verb in English can operate in past, present and future situations. Modals carry modal meaning into sentences, they do not carry tense. "operate", yes. I agree. Both statements are true. I...

The idiom is "have got" in both American and British English. It is a purely idiomatic alternate for "have" and is not much used except in the present tense. That is, "have got" is the present tense of this idiom, even though "get" is the present tense form of "to get", and the past is "got"....

The parking lot can park a lot of cars. Your focus on "can" is throwing you off the track. The problem lies with the verb "park". "park" is the verb which requires an animate agent, not "can"! A parking lot ('car park' in British English) cannot move the car into a parking space. That is...