Search results for 'tag:Modals tag:Negatives' matching tags 'Modals' and 'Negatives'

Re: or /nor

New2grammar — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:29:11 GMT

Or and Nor are killing me! The following are the combinations that I know of

Either ...or
Neither...nor
isn't/doesn't/negative modal verbs ...or (why NOR is possible???)

He doesn't eat spaghetti or sushi (nor sushi??)

Please help.

Re: wouldn't vs won't

CalifJim — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:05:46 GMT

I hope he's not listening to this right now or the gift wouldn't/won't be a surprise anymore.

It's Supposed To Be Hard! Otherwise, Everyone Would Do It!

Arrgghh!!! These would problems!

_______

You may be right that hope has an influence here, but let me explain these in a different way.

1. I hope he's not listening to this right now, or the gift won't be a surprise anymore. = I hope he's not listening to this right now, because [if he is (listening)], the gift won't be a surprise anymore.

Here we have a so-called "real condition". The situation itself is such that he may certainly be listening as the statement is uttered. Events are unfolding in real time. The fact of his listening is a distinct possibility in the real world. "What could be in this world" is that he is listening. And "what could be in this world" is that he is not listening.

2. It's supposed to be hard! Otherwise, everyone would do it! = (It is hard!) It's supposed to be hard! (because) If were not hard, everyone would do it!

This is more like an opinion than the example above. In any case, we know that in this world, it is hard. Don't let the semi-modal supposed to fool you. It implies that "it is hard". The otherwise represents the hypothetical idea that it is not hard. So this negative idea is in the world of "what could be if things were different."

But note also:

3. It's a good thing he's not listening to this right now. Otherwise, the gift wouldn't be a surprise anymore. = It's a good thing he's not listening to this right now. (because) If he were listening to this right now, the gift wouldn't be a surprise anymore.

Note the difference between 1. and 3. Here we know that he is not listening, so the word otherwise opens up a situation in the world of "what could be if things were different".

__________

To summarize: Example 1 introduces a real possibility. In the real world he may really be listening. We don't enter into the world of "what could be if things were different". Examples 2 and 3 introduce only hypothetical possibilities. In 2."what is" is that it is hard. "What could be" is that it is not hard -- which we know is not so in the situation presented. In 3. "what is" is that he is not listening. "What could be" is that he is listening -- which we know is not so in the situation presented.

Re: use of modals for past sense

26TMNTJG2PG — Sun, 11 May 2008 10:37:09 GMT

If you want to add negative elements of intent, possibility, etc. to the event that might have taken place yesterday but did not, you would resort to the use of modals.

I must/should/would/might have washed my car yesterday.

The use of these forms seems to have limitations in that there aren't any other forms that can be used for the event before that, but instead, the same above modal forms must be used. I donât agree with you.

I must/should/would/might have washed my friend's car yesterday afternoon during his birthday party, and I must/should/would/might have washed my neighbor's car when I started to leave for his birthday party yesterday morning. This sentence is not properly constructed.

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.

What's the meaning of "ought to be doing"?

Viceidol — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:25:07 GMT

Hi, everyone. I'm studying modals recently. I have a doubt about "ought to be doing". My grammar book says "ought to be doing" means "someone is not doing what he/she is supposed to do" in an affirmative sentence or "someone is doing what he/she isn't supposed to do" in an negative sentence. For example:

He ought not to be spending all his time on the TV. He should study for his exam.

We ought to be wearing seat belts, but we are not.

My question is: Does "ought to be doing" only has this meaning? Could it serve other function as well?

I hope you could tell me if there is any, thank you for your help!

Please check out these sentences for me (modal+have done)

Viceidol — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:19:29 GMT

Hi, I have several sentences here, all of them are using "modal+have done" structure, and they are all about "deducing earilier possibility from the past". I've made these sentences but I'm not sure if they are right.

So could you please check out these sentences and see if they are all correct for me? Thank you for taking your time answering my question.

Affirmative: He thought that it must have been Bob.

Negative â He thought that it can't have been / couldn't have been Bob. (Which one is right?)

Affirmative: He thought that it may have been / might have been / could have been Bob. (Which one is right?)

Negative â He thought that it may not have been / might not have been / couldn't have been Bob. (Which one is right?)

Affirmative: He thought that it will have been / would have been / should have been Bob. (Which one is right?)

Negative â He thought that it will not have been / wouldn't have been / shouldn't have been Bob. (Which one is right?)

Re: Using "could" making a question

Anonymous — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 04:16:27 GMT

It could rain tomorrow. means that it is possible that it will rain. The modal verb 'could' expresses possibility.

The negative would normally be expressed by "It couldn't possibly rain tomorrow." (we're in the desert!) or "It's not possible that it will rain tomorrow." (we've had rain for 40 days and 40 nights, and it's ludicrous to add on another day of rain!) or by the opinion, "I don't think it will rain tomorrow."

So, the sentence, "It could rain tomorrow." means "It is possible that it will rain."

Therefore, the question, "Is it possible for it to rain tomorrow?" and the negative, "It is not possible that it will rain tomorrow." are not so common, and therefore, sound odd.

V.C.

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: did or was

Philip — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:10:27 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

Hi,

Sometimes I get confused which one to used in the situations like the one or ones below.

Did he go to school on Sunday?

Was he born in Japan?

Why one takes a modal verb 'did', whereas the other one takes an auxiliary verb 'was'? How can I make correct choices?

'Go' is a regular verb that uses do/does/did in the formation of negatives and questions.

'Born' is actually the past participle of 'bear', here used in the passive. 'He was born [by his mother until his birth]' has become shortened to 'he was born', which is now the common expression, people not even thinking of the actual meaning. Dictionaries now list it as an adjective in its own right: 'brought into life by birth'.

Re: How to say using modal verb?

Fandorin — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:58:41 GMT

Hmm...But why can't I use "any longer" in this case or it's using only in negative way ? And how I understand it's impossible to use can with future tenses and it's implied that "can" relate to present and future, isn't it?

If I say : "How can I work hereafter?" Will it be correct?