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

Re: What is an infinitive complement?

Anonymous — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:58:35 GMT

i really don't know exactly the "how" and the "why" the following examples are called infinitive complement so, study it by observing my examples:

here are some examples of infinitive complements:

It's important to memorize your pin number.
It's sometimes helpful to eat chicken soup.

(Anyways, the words in bold letters are the infinitive complements, one of the uses of these is when you are giving a suggestion, you use them to substitute the modal verb should).

other examples of infinitive complements:

It's useful + the infinitive verb
it's best "
it's helpful "

i hope i was helpful : )

Re: please i need to help from you

CalifJim — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 01:22:42 GMT

Linguists often consider endings when determining the number of tenses in a language.

The English verb can only take two forms from the viewpoint of tense endings: present: talks and past: talked.

The future is formed by adding an extra verb (the modal verb will) in front of the verb -- not by changing an ending.

For this reason some textbooks use different terminology for English verb tenses depending whether the verb form is made with endings or with other verbs.

On this forum you will find all sorts of terminology. Some of it conforms to the practice I just described, but much of it does not.

CJ

Would

Rotter — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:26:03 GMT

In the early Church, Christians would celebrate the anniversary of a martyr's death for Christ (known as the saint's "birth day") by serving an All-Night Vigil, and then celebrating the Eucharist over their tomb or place of martyrdom. In the fourth century, neighbouring dioceses began to transfer relics, and to celebrate the feast days of specific martyrs in common. Frequently, a number of Christians would suffer martyrdom on the same day, which naturally led to a joint commemoration. In the persecution of Diocletian the number of martyrs became so great that a separate day could not be assigned to each. But the Church, feeling that every martyr should be venerated, appointed a common day for all.

I have learnt to write the modal verb 'would' in the case of a hypothesis. Marius and a few others taught me this recently.
I don't know the reason to write the modal verb 'would' in the first sentence of the above.
I would write the following:
In the early Church, Christians celebrated the anniversary of a maty'r death for Christ ...
What is wrong with my way of writing in this context ? It was a past event so to write simple past tense is appropriate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now look at the following:
Frequently, a number of Christians would suffer martyrdom on the same day, which naturally ...

What is the necessity of writing 'Christians would suffer' here?

I would write the following:

Frequently, a number of Christians suffered martyrdom on the same day, which naturally ...
Is the above incorrect in the given context?

[People of this country celebrate or rather pay a great attention to All Saint's Day.]

Re: Using Would instead of Will in Future Perfect

Chad — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 10:18:23 GMT

Sabyakgp wrote:

Dear Friends,

I would like to how "Would" can be used in future perfect as a modal verb.

For Example.

Analysts predicts that world population would have risen considerably by 2010. (Prediction can be wrong, so using "Would" instead of "Will" means this sentence is less directive than the below one which is using "Will" )

Analysts confirms that world population will have risen considerably by 2010. (here analysts are confirming the likelihood of world population being increased by 2010).

But both of them are pointing to future. Are these sentences correct ? Can we use "Would" in future perfect in this way to mean something less likely to happen in future.

Or consider this:

Day "begins" at about 09:00 after 4 hours of sleep. So after doing the customary check on emails and stuff like that, I pack up all the rest of the stuff I have (computer being last, obviously) and then leave home.

So on the way to the airport, I finally manage to get Kara's number (to wish her a happy early birthday since I would have left by that time) through Linda -> Connie -> Bonnie. (I guess, speaker was not very sure that he would have left by that time, so he used would have left instead of will have left). Is my understanding correct ?

Another Example:

My company will have allocated 50 shares for me by Jan 2007, but it's of no use for me as i would have left the cmopany by that time. (Here again speaker is not sure whether he/she would be out of the company before Jan 2007, other Will could have been used instead of Would have).

Please let me know whether my understanding is correct ?

Regards

Sabya

I think "I will have gone" expresses action in the future before another action in the future. this is the past in the future. And "I would have gone" usually use in conditional statement like for example "If I won the lottery I would buy a car" lke we are thinking about a future condition.

Using Would instead of Will in Future Perfect

Sabyakgp — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:28:43 GMT

Dear Friends,

I would like to how "Would" can be used in future perfect as a modal verb.

For Example.

Analysts predicts that world population would have risen considerably by 2010. (Prediction can be wrong, so using "Would" instead of "Will" means this sentence is less directive than the below one which is using "Will" )

Analysts confirms that world population will have risen considerably by 2010. (here analysts are confirming the likelihood of world population being increased by 2010).

But both of them are pointing to future. Are these sentences correct ? Can we use "Would" in future perfect in this way to mean something less likely to happen in future.

Or consider this:

Day "begins" at about 09:00 after 4 hours of sleep. So after doing the customary check on emails and stuff like that, I pack up all the rest of the stuff I have (computer being last, obviously) and then leave home.

So on the way to the airport, I finally manage to get Kara's number (to wish her a happy early birthday since I would have left by that time) through Linda -> Connie -> Bonnie. (I guess, speaker was not very sure that he would have left by that time, so he used would have left instead of will have left). Is my understanding correct ?

Another Example:

My company will have allocated 50 shares for me by Jan 2007, but it's of no use for me as i would have left the cmopany by that time. (Here again speaker is not sure whether he/she would be out of the company before Jan 2007, other Will could have been used instead of Would have).

Please let me know whether my understanding is correct ?

Regards

Sabya

Re: The Seven Deadly Sins of Grammar

Drewauerbach — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:08:48 GMT

Alienvoord, I appreciate you're constructive criticism. Allow me to rebute:

1) Comprehensible, yes. But many expressions are comprehensible even without being gramatically sound. The nuances I try to reveal in this post are to help you write better gramatically, not to sound or to write comprehensible.

2) I cannot refute this well supported argument. In fact, there is a sliver of the article that directly weakens my point. I quote:
-------BEGIN EXCERPT FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive -----------

Problems caused by trying to avoid the split infinitive

Stylistically, the careful placement of another word between to and the bare infinitive sometimes avoids ambiguity or ugliness. The old prohibition on split infinitives is particularly surprising when one observes that there are a number of expressions in English that are weakened considerably by avoiding the split infinitive.

[edit]

An example

R.L. Trask uses this example:

She decided to gradually get rid of the teddy bears she had collected.

Clearly, what is implied here is she took a decision to get rid of her teddy bears, and the disposal would happen over time. 'Gradually' splits the infinitive 'to get'. But if we were to move it, where would it go?. Consider the following:

She decided gradually to get rid of the teddy bears she had collected.

This implies that the decision was gradual.

She decided to get rid of the teddy bears she had collected gradually.

This implies that the collecting process was gradual.

She decided to get gradually rid of the teddy bears she had collected.

This sounds awkward to most native speakers of English.

She decided to get rid gradually of the teddy bears she had collected.

This is almost as awkward as its immediate predecessor.

Not only does the original example sound right to a native speaker, it is also the only semantically sound possibility.

The best way to avoid using split infinitives is usually via a change in lexical choices. However, in spoken language, phonetic stresses and timing is usually all that is needed for a sentence's actual implications to be understood.

In other instances, use of a split infinitive is for many people the most natural way to add certain kinds of emphasis in conversation:

Student A: "I'm going to do better next year."Student B: "I'm going to really do better next year."

On a historical level, it is possible that years of attacks against split infinitives by prescriptive grammarians have cowed some people into needless reluctance to split other compound verb forms. For example, people will contort sentences to avoid placing an adverb in its usual position between the auxiliary verb and the participle, leading to constructions such as, "The argument originally had been usedâ¦" instead of "The argument had originally been used", which is more natural for most speakers.

It is probably not possible to disentangle this argument from the modality of English grammar. Typically, in a phrase such as "I am going to", the verbal construct "to be going to" acts as a modal verb, analogous to other standard modal verbs "will", "could", "can" etc. In this sense, it becomes apparent that the preposition 'to' does not belong to the infinitive verb, but rather to the modal verb. In this case, it becomes impossible to split an infinitive.

-------END EXCERPT FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive --------

3) By saying, "I only <want to go to the movies>," you do NOT imply that you also <do not want to breathe.> Again, you got to pay attention to what "only" is modifying, the verb. By placing the limiting modifier before the first verb in this sentence, you imply limitations to what you can do, including breathing (although the idea sounds exagerrated initially, it really is correct). Now, you say that the sentence implies that the speaker <does not want to breathe>. Not so! In fact, the speaker implies that (s)he CANNOT breathe, regardless of desire. In fact, the speaker implies that (s)he is capable of only desiring to go to the movies. In my last sentence, I would have been correct to say, "In fact, the speaker implies that (s)he is only capable of desiring to go to the movies," or, "In fact, the speaker implies that (s)he only is capable of desiring to go to the movies."

4) The point I'm trying to make here is that using "it" as a dummy subject is gramatically incorrect; therefore, we should reject its use as a dummy subject (think prescriptivist rather than descriptivist).

5) I do not understand your argument here; therefore, I cannot refute it.

6) Your "counterargument" seems to be more like a historical basis that I would use to set up my argument. Which side are you on: yours or mine?

7) You're correct; I have not. Here is my evidence: Passive voice is boring. End of discussion.

Re: Linguistics

CalifJim — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:25:31 GMT

I have the same problem, to the point that I believe the entire internal/external conceptualization and terminology are not only hopelessly inadequate, but actually perversely antagonistic to understanding.

I look at must as epistemic (logical necessity), have to as deontic (interpersonal obligation). Period.
Other variants are to me merely "borrowings". We can borrow "must" into the deontic world and "have to" into the epistemic world. (Employees must wash their hands after using the toilet. / It had to [be / have been] John who left the keys on the table.) But these can be conceptualized as special uses. They don't need to be seen as the primary uses.

If an obligation is imposed from outside, I assume it's external. If it's imposed by the subject upon himself, I assume it's internal. However, I don't see any way that this distinction correlates with any particular choice of modal verb. Both have to and must can be used for external obligations, as I conceive of them here, and both have to and must can be used for internal obligations as well. One may as well discuss the number of letters needed to spell each modal verb as a means of understanding how they work!

If internal and external represent a separate and independent classification, it should be possible to find epistemic internal, epistemic external, deontic internal, and deontic external variants. I have no idea what these would be! Perhaps if I [have to / must] do something, it's internal and if you, he, or she [{have/has} to / must] do something, it's external!

In short, those are my rambling remarks on the subject.

CJ

Re: I need your comment on "future tense"

MrPedantic — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:28:47 GMT

PASTEL wrote:

MrP! How are you? I'm glad to see you again.

Wow, how long did it take you to squeeze those examples? If I read it more than twice, I'm going to faint to the ground. I assure you, I will.

I have a new question. Ready?!

Tim ____ early before he reaches 65. He mentioned it at the meeting recently.

1- is going to
2- will

When it speaks of reporting, it's better to use "be going to."

I think "will" is just fine. I don't see anything wrong with it. What do you think?

Pastel

Hello Pastel

It's an odd sentence. I'd change it to:

1. Tim is going to retire early (at 65). He mentioned it in a recent meeting.

2. Tim will retire early (at 65). He mentioned it in a recent meeting.

#1 would be used if you were reporting the news to someone.

#2 might be used if...

"Okay, I've made some changes to the company structure. I have them here, on the back of this envelope. Gather round, everyone. Pastel! Stop playing that computer game and come here! This is important!

Okay...Now, Roro is going to work on prepositions from now on. MrP is going to remain in charge of the washroom. (We need some more soap in there, by the way, MrP. And fix the lock on cubicle number 2, will you. I got stuck in there for an hour the other day.) As for Paco â Paco will have responsibility for all modal verbs. Now is everything clear? Any questions?"

"What about Tim?"

"Tim will retire early. But don't say anything to him. He doesn't know yet. I'll talk to him later. But that's a point â where is Tim?"

"Cubicle number two."

MrP

Re: Past Perfect

just the truth — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:26:51 GMT

Paco:
By the way I have a feeling that English 'now' (in the linguistic sense, not in the physical sense) is not instantaneous, but it seems to occupy some span in the time that flows from the past to the future. Otherwise I cannot understand the usage of the present progressive tense.

JTT: I didn't make any reference to 'now' and the present progressive, Paco. Different 'tense', different usage. The present progressive encompasses a different part of the time spectrum than does a future marker. In order to discuss anything that is going to happen ahead of 'now', no matter how small that time frame is, requires a future marker.

Bringing this discussion back to the issue at hand, Pastel and I would guess, a large number of ESLs are operating under the mistaken notion that, "I would save $20" has a past time meaning and that it can collocate with "if I hadn't bought. We now can see it doesn't and that it can't. We should also be able to see that word choice also has a dramatic effect on what "tense" is chosen.

I believe this aspect is a crucial to helping Jack and other ESLs really grasp these differences. For as long as I've been here, Jack has been confused by these "tense" differences.

Why can't 'save' be used without a modal perfect, but these two are okay,

a) I would have 20 bucks more NOW if I hadn't bought it.

b) I would be ahead 20 bucks NOW if I hadn't bought it.

Because a) and b) have meanings that point to a present state, a present condition while 'save' has a meaning that can only point to that finished time when something was bought.

Let me repeat what the Longman Grammar of Written and Spoken English states as regards the modal verbs in modern English. This is crucial to Jack and Pastel and many other ESLs grasping the meanings of these sentences. They have been misled for much too long.

++++++++++++
"As already noted (6.2.1), English verbs phrases can be marked for either tense or modality, but not both."

" ... we regard modal verbs as unmarked for tense."

Longman Grammar of Written and Spoken English [LGWSE]
++++++++++++++

Here is what is on the back cover of the LGWSE.

"Some aspects of traditional grammar are challenged by this book, and some findings, not even suspected before now, will surprise and interest the reader.

The way language is used in conversation is quite different from the way language is used in fiction, which in turn is very different from the grammatical characteristics of newspapers or academic books."

David Crystal - "For the foreseeable future anyone with a serious interest in English grammar will have to take into account the information this book contains."

Modals

jack112 — Sat, 12 Mar 2005 22:36:26 GMT

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article.jsp?content=20050311_190923_1488

1. James says if the NDP gets elected in the spring, she would increase the number of residencies for foreign trained doctors to 25 annually. (Is this a conditional wiht a modal verb? Is the modal verb acting as a suggestion? It has no tense right?)