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

Re: Conditional dilemma I

CalifJim — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:28:37 GMT

I think the following would be considered a typical Type 3 Conditional.

If I had studied hard in college, I would have become a successful person. Yes. This is a typical Type 3 conditional. If ... had ..., would have ....

Here, I think would is a modal verb for a clause that states the result of an imaginary situation that could have happened in the past yes, and it wouldn't be a fargone idea to say that it mainly deals with the tone of the clause, not the 'timing' or 'time' aspect of it. It deals with both past time and the 'tone', i.e., counterfactual.

have become in the main clause is present perfect No, this should be regarded as a modal perfect, which is not the same as saying it's present perfect. and IMO, the present perfect is used to note the fact that something has some kind of relevance to the present Yes, the present perfect is used this way, but here we don't have a true present perfect. A modal perfect is quite different in function. and would wouldn't affect that aspect of the sentence in any way. Yes, the fact that would is there makes a big difference.

What I am rather puzzled by is the timing aspect of it. The dependent clause 'If I had studied hard in college' indicates the time for its action is before another time and in comparison, the main clause 'I would have become a successful person' (in present perfect) indicates the time for its result that has some kind of 'live' relevance to the present. Doesn't that create a friction in one's mind as he tries to figure out and reconcile nicely the timing sequence of the clauses involved. You will have to rethink this whole paragraph in light of what I have pointed out earlier. The friction does not exist once you realize that this is not at all the same as a non-modal present perfect.

_______________

The modal non-perfect and modal perfect tenses should not be confused with the non-modal non-perfect and the non-modal perfect tenses. A modal tense applies to non-past situations. A modal perfect tense applies to past situations. The use of have after a modal makes a "modal perfect" tense, but that's just a way of putting the statement in the past, compared to the corresponding modal non-perfect statement.

It might be raining. [It is possible that it is or will be raining.]
It might have been raining.   [It is possible that it was raining.]

I should go.               [It is advisable for me to go.]
I should have gone.   [It was advisable for me to go.]

I would jump from that ledge. [Imagining myself on that ledge now or in the future, I can imagine myself jumping from it without any problem, i.e., being willing to jump.] [This does not say that I will jump. Until now, I have not done so. Maybe I will never get the opportunity to do so.]
I would have jumped from that ledge. [Imagining myself on that ledge at some time in the past, I can imagine myself jumping from it without any problem, i.e., being willing to jump.] [This does not say that I did jump. In fact, I didn't -- perhaps because I never had the opportunity to do so.]

So have does not have the same function after a modal as it has when used as the only auxiliary verb to create a perfect tense.

CJ

Re: How many tenses are there in English language?

Jackson6612 — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:11:01 GMT

Each modal can be used with the 4 aspects and 2 voices. Typically only the modal will is included in the count (I don't know why! would seems equally useful, for example, in indicating time relationships.), so this adds 8 more tenses for a total of 24 tenses. If we extend the count by including the 8 tenses which can be formed with would, we have 32 tenses in all.

Please explain the above paragraph. Thank you.

Re: How many tenses are there in English language?

Jackson6612 — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:24:36 GMT

Please explain the above paragraph. Thank you.

Re: Will,Would,Shall,Should

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:49:32 GMT

Keron wrote:
HI

Could anyone teach me how to use them
I saw a paragraph in which future tense was being used ,but "would" also appear in the same paragraph
Why is it so?
My classmate said the use of "would" is not related to the tense!
So could anyone tell me when I need to use them
thank you!

Keron

http://www.englishpage.com/modals/modalintro.html

Re: Articles

hela — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:19:23 GMT

Dear Mr Pedantic,

Any novel will do as long as in the paragraphs there is a mixture of different tenses / modals, prepositions, quantifiers, articles and/or intensifiers. I would love to have some texts which would combine a variety of future tenses too. Am I too demanding... ?

Thanks a million for your dedication in making me work my grammar! (in this written in good English ? )

Respectfully yours,
Hela

Re: Proverbs

hela — Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:42:25 GMT

Thank you Mr Pedantic for your advice. I'll try that and I'll come back to you.

Would it be possible for you to tell me how I can get exercises -in the form of PARAGRPHS and not sentences- which would include a variety of tense combinations, modals, "fill in the blanks" with preposition, quantifiers, etc?

I have tried to find some through google by typing "online exercises grammar in context" but what I get are either names of books to buy, or sites that offer exercises indeed but in the form of sentences and not PARAGRAPHS.

Would YOU have an idea about how I should proceed to get what I'm looking for?

With all my gratitude.
Best regards,
Hela

Re: Can't have to be replaced by couldn't?

just the truth — Mon, 27 Dec 2004 18:28:55 GMT

Mr M: You are choosing one interpretation; I have chosen two.

JTT: That's my point, Mr M. You have given an interpretation that, I'm afraid to say, just doesn't square with reality.

Mr M: A little while ago, he went to the lease renewal office to renew his lease.
The clerk told him then that he couldn't/(can't) renew his lease.
He came back and reported to us: 'I just found out that I couldn't/can't renew my lease'.
He couldn't renew his lease then.
He still can't renew his lease.
Both expressions are possible.

JTT: Both are possible because both point to the current state of the situation. Again, it has nothing to do with tense, rather it's a reporting issue. We tend to use the historical past tense forms of the modals as default reported speech signals. That's all.

Since, "I just found out that I CAN'T renew my lease" works perfectly well with the past tense form , it clearly points up that this isn't an issue of complying with any tense requirements.

Mr M: However, if it were possible in the future to renew his lease, he could still say 'I just found out that I can/could renew my lease'-- by the SAME rule that I gave.

If we return it to direct speech, the clerk said, 'You can't renew your lease.'
He then came back and said, 'I just found out that I can't/couldn't renew my lease.'
Or, he could have simply said, 'I can't/couldn't renew my lease.'

On the other hand, the clerk might have said, 'You can renew your lease later'.
In this case, he came back and said, 'I just found out that I can/could renew my lease.'
Or, he could simply have said, 'I can renew my lease'-- NOT X'I could renew my lease'. Hence, the two forms are not equally applicable to the future.

JTT: I respectfully submit you've trapped yourself. At least twice, you allow that could be used, then you deny its use. It's not helpful to confuse the issue of reported speech with what is, in your third paragraph, an example that has nothing to do with reported speech. Though the information for both comes from the same source, the "clerk's mouth", what the lessee wants to state differs in the two situations.

In 'I just found out that I can/could renew my lease.', the word is fulfilling requirements for reported speech. Here too, is pointing to a future potential. If we assume, as you have, that it has something to do with matching the past tense verb , we have the completely untenable position of calling it past tense which is a future tense.

'I could renew my lease' is most certainly possible. Without the connection to reported speech, it has simply become a more tenative . Both state equally that "It's possible to renew my lease"; only shifts to its GREATER conditional/tenative meaning.

It then should come as no surprize that "the two forms are not equally applicable to the future". and do different jobs. That doesn't mean that they are present or past tense forms and this is what causes all the confusion. Though they are not equally applicable to the future, they are BOTH applicable to the future and in this case the future only.