Search results for 'tag:Past tenses tag:Modal auxiliaries' matching tags 'Past tenses' and 'Modal auxiliaries'

Re: 1) In the end I had to get a lift with a colleague

Belly — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 02:00:22 GMT

Cool Breeze wrote:
Hi Belly

1) You could use to get as well. Both the full infinitive (to get) and the plain/bare infintive (get) are correct after do in sentences like yours. There is an old song All I Have To Do Is Dream. It could just as well be All I Have To Do Is To Dream.

2) Not [a single] one is idiomatic and grammatical. Not any fitted is impossible because fitted is the finite/main verb (past tense) and the collocation not any/anything/anybody is never used as a grammatical subject. Not + any/anything/anybody is possible when any is an object:

I didn't see any boys there.
I didn't see anything there.
I didn't see anybody there.

3) Should is a defective/modal auxiliary and is therefore always followed by a plain infinitive: Should your information turn out to be true, ... However, the sentence is incomplete as there is no main clause.

CB

Hi CB, so we musn't to add not before any if it is a subject, how about just any? Ex: Anyone could do that!

Re: 1) In the end I had to get a lift with a colleague

Cool Breeze — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:23:55 GMT

Hi Belly

1) You could use to get as well. Both the full infinitive (to get) and the plain/bare infintive (get) are correct after do in sentences like yours. There is an old song All I Have To Do Is Dream. It could just as well be All I Have To Do Is To Dream.

2) Not [a single] one is idiomatic and grammatical. Not any fitted is impossible because fitted is the finite/main verb (past tense) and the collocation not any/anything/anybody is never used as a grammatical subject. Not + any/anything/anybody is possible when any is an object:

I didn't see any boys there.
I didn't see anything there.
I didn't see anybody there.

3) Should is a defective/modal auxiliary and is therefore always followed by a plain infinitive: Should your information turn out to be true, ... However, the sentence is incomplete as there is no main clause.

CB

Re: Using ''need'' as a modal

Cool Breeze — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:06:55 GMT

Jackson6612 wrote:
Need sometimes behaves like a modal, for example 'She need know', 'She needn't know', or, in more formal English, 'She need not know'.

Examples:

1: You needn't worry

2: Buying budget-priced furniture needn't mean compromising on quality or style...

3: Loneliness can be horrible, but it need not remain that way...

4: You needn't come again, if you don't want to...

[an excerpt from Collins COBUILD Dictionary]

I would have written the above examples as:

1: You needn't to worry

2: Buying budget-priced furniture doesn't mean compromising on quality or style...

3: Loneliness can be horrible, but it need not to remain that way...

4: You needn't to come again, if you don't want to...

Questions:

1: I suppose ''to'' is functioning as a preposition in the above examples. Why can't a preposition be used after a modal?

Hi Jackson

You've got it wrong. To isn't a preposition in your sentences after need, it's a particle before an infinitive.

Examples of to as a preposition:

I am going to the park.
We are listening to him.

Examples of to as part of an infinitive:
I want to go there.
It's impossible to learn this.

The to-particle is normally not used after a modal auxiliary, or a defective auxiliary, as they are also called:
I will do it tomorrow.
Can he swim?
You should buy it.
You should have bought it.

If you use need or dare in the same way as the modals are used, they behave in exactly the same way as the modals:
1. You don't use do in questions and negations.
2. You don't use the third person singular s-inflection.
3. You don't use to before the infinitive.

Examples:
Can he come? Need he come? Dare he come?
1. NOT: Does he can come? (Wrong!!!)
2. NOT: Cans he come? Needs he come? Dares he come? (Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!)
3. NOT: Can he to come? Need he to come? (Wrong!!!)

You cannot use need in the past tense at all in the above way, but dare is sometimes possible in the past tense as well:
He dared not do it. (Or: He didn't dare to do it.)

Cheers
CB

Re: might vs might have and Passive versions of both

Cool Breeze — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:53:40 GMT

Kilimanjaro wrote:

Hello Cool Breeze,

This sentence is taken from Michael SWAN's Practical English Usage. He says "might" can be used in such contexts

Hi Kilimanjaro

Yes, I know it's from that book. You mentioned it in a previous post. I didn't say it was right or wrong in my opinion. I said I wouldn't use might that way in a main clause. Grammarians don't agree on everything. There are grammarians who dislike using might as a past tense auxiliary in main clauses, and I agree with them. Perhaps this is due to my subconscious desire to decrease the ambiguity of English. Not that what I think has any bearing on that...

I also agree with a lot that has been said about might in this thread. Jim has given excellent detailed accounts of the use of might and some other auxiliaries. I have read the same in quite a few grammar books before. It has long been obvious to me that natives perceive of some auxiliaries differently in different situations. In plain English: the defective auxiliaries or modal auxiliaries are often used in ambiguous ways. English is such an inexact language that it shouldn't be used in official documents and international treaties at all.

Nobody would argue about the meaning of bought in these two sentences:

He bought a car.
He bought a car yesterday.

Bought is a past tense in both sentences, yesterday is not needed for us to understand bought correctly. If the meaning of might depends on similar expressions, on the context, the resultant sentence is bound to be ambiguous in some people's opinion in some circumstances as the number of possible words and expressions used in connection with might is endless.

Cheers
CB

Re: Do you believe that Latin-based words are more formal?

milky — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:20:40 GMT

Let's not forget that much formality in English is not based on word meanings. We also create fomality by using the past tense of verbs and what are traditionally called the past tense of modal auxiliaries.

Re: could (polite form of can???)

Buddhaheart — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 18:57:12 GMT

Could is the past tense of can. These two words are among the many that form a class of MAV modal auxiliary verbs called the âpureâmodals. AVâs (Auxiliary verbs) are helping verbs that help the main verbs to convey additional information. MAVâs are a type of AV. MAVâs help to convey shades of meaning: permission, ability, necessity, advisability, possibility, probability and so on.

Can & could convey permission as in requests and statements and general, physical and mental ability. They also convey degree of sureness (definiteness) and possibility.

Could expresses the same idea as Can except in a weaker, less direct, more polite and more formal manner.

I'll try to add modal meaning to each of your statements:

1. You could ( = are permitted to) shut up and sit down. [expressing permission]

2. You could (= might like to; =might) give me a hand with the cooking. [expressing request]

3. You could (= are permitted to; = might) phone Mary and see what time she's coming.[expressing permission/suggestion]

Re: may, might and could - what's the difference

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:40:36 GMT

One such grammatical distinction causing much confusion is the use of the modal auxiliaries âmayâ and âmightâ. When used in the present tense, the two modals are almost transposable, as the difference between the two is merely a very small degree of certainty. However, it has become common practice to use both words in the past tense as though they have the same meaning. In the past tense, may indicates doubt for whether the verb of the clause was carried out and might denotes that the doer had the opportunity to perform an action, but did not. For example, a statement such as If they hadnât been so brave, I may not have been rescued, could seem reasonable to some native English speakers, however, the speaker was rescued, and therefore might in place of may would be grammatically correct. Conversely, the use of the auxiliary might in a statement such as If I had worn a prettier dress last night, I might have attracted a nice man, the auxiliary may would have made more grammatical sense, as it is not certain that a prettier dress would have resulted in the attraction of a nice man.

Re: How many tenses in English?

paco2004 — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 11:43:35 GMT

Hello

Here is some information I got online

Future Tense in Old English

And now finally a few irregular verbs, which used several diffefrent stems for their tenses. These verbs are very important in Old English and are met very often in the texts: wesan (to be), bÃ©on (to be), gÃ¡n (to go), dÃ³n (to do), willan (will). Mind that there was no future tense in the Old English language, and the future action was expressed by the Present forms, just sometimes using verbs of modality, willan (lit. "to wish to do") or sculan (lit. "to have to do").

English Tenses and Aspects

The English verbs are inflected for two tenses: present (walk(s)) and past (walked). In other words, tense is indicated by morphological marking: zero/-s for present tense and -ed for regular past tense. Tense is not necessarily straightforwardly related to what TIME the event represented by the verb takes place. For instance, the simple present tense can be used to refer to various times, as it is used for (1) events which happen regularly or habitually: He smokes, drinks, betrays people and has no guilt whatsoever. (2) timeless truths: The sun rises in the east. (3) present events: I declare the meeting open. Bremner passes the ball to Lorimer. (4) historic present, especially in literary English but also in oral narrative. It recalls or recounts the past as vivivdly as if it were present: He just walks into the room and sits down in front of the fire without saying a word to anyone. (5) events that are expected to happen in the future: When he returns to Manhattan 1000 years later, it has been destroyed and rebuilt three times.

2. What about time then?

We can, of course, situate events in time, but this is not only done by means of grammatical tense. The two tenses, past and present, combine with the aspects discussed below to indicate how the event is viewed in relation to time. In the time-line perspective, we can talk about the past, present and future time. To take an example, English, unlike many other languages, does not have a separate verb form for the future. Consequently, there is no future tense in English, even though there are, of course, many different ways in which we can talk about the future time: (1) The parcel will arrive tomorrow. (modal auxiliary will) (2) The parcel is going to arrive tomorrow. (be going to) (3) The parcel is arriving tomorrow. (present progressive) (4) The parcel arrives tomorrow. (simple present) (5) The parcel will be arriving tomorrow. (modal auxiliary will + progressive aspect)

paco

Re: When to use would and when to use could

just the truth — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 02:45:02 GMT

Jim wrote:
I'm not sure anyone has actually compiled a set of "rules", but note that "could" often means "would be able to", so in a way "could" sometimes contains the meaning of "would" within it. "could" cannot always be paraphrased this way, but it very often can.

I thought I could do it. = I thought I would be able to do it.

I respectfully submit that you have misanalysed this, Jim.

does not mean or .

equals . is simply a reporting mechanism.

I thought I would be able to do it. = I thought, "I will be able to do it".

==================

Cacarr is dead on with her/his description of the modal as not having past tense. Sure, is used in past time situations, but so is ;

----------------
That flight will have already arrived.

This request is in the form of an Information / Pro-Forma
pack which your organisation will have already received.

Everyone Will Have Already Seen This But I Thought It
Was Funny ...

The families of those who have already died or been injured will have already
been helped by the 3 Service Benevolent Funds
-------------------

The modal auxiliary verbs, which can operate in any tense/time situation, can only be one thing, tenseless.

May and Might - old rumors

just the truth — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:16:44 GMT

http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/auxiliary.htm#may
Unless otherwise indicated, all written material on this Web site is the property of Professor Charles Darling and the Capital Community College Foundation and is published here for free use by the college's students and staff and for the general online community.

========================

{I find it easier to discuss each point one at a time so I'll mark off all my comments with a double pound sign at the start and another set of double pound signs at the end,
[like this: ## ...##]. Everything else is Professor Darling's quoted from the link, above.

==========================

Uses of May and Might

Professor Darling's Point #1

Two of the more troublesome modal auxiliaries are may and might. When used in the context of granting or seeking permission, might is the past tense of may. Might is considerably more tentative than may.

1. May I leave class early?
2. If I've finished all my work and I'm really quiet, might I leave early?

## I agree with Professor Darling that "[M]ight is considerably more tentative than may". That's about all I agree with. His example sentence, [which I've marked as 2. for ease of discussion], completely refutes his contention made just a few sentences before, to wit;

"When used in the context of granting or seeking permission, might is the past tense of may."

It's readily apparent even to a child, {I've asked some.} that sentence 2. is not a past meaning, nor is it a past tense. The only reason that 'may & might' are troublesome is that the good professor, and many others, are operating from a false premise.

FALSE PREMISE: Might is the past tense of may.

I pointed this error out some time ago, a year or more, and someone said they wrote to Professor Darling. This person stated that Mr Darling agreed there was a problem and that he would get around to rectifying it. If that person actually did write {I should have requested a copy of the email}, we see that there has been no change.

Of course, Mr Darling could never create a new example to illustrate his point because his point is flat out wrong!! ##

-------------------------------------------------

Professor Darling's Point 2

In the context of expressing possibility, may and might are interchangeable present and future forms and might + have + past participle is the past form:

a. She might be my advisor next semester.
b. She may be my advisor next semester.
c. She might have advised me not to take biology.

## Once you start with a false premise, the contortions needed to defend it just get sillier and sillier.

Of course, sentence c. could have a 'may' rather than a 'might'.

c1. She MAY have advised me not to take biology, but that was 5 years ago. How am I supposed to remember way back then?

The specific phrase, "she may have advised", not an extremely common collocation, got 32 hits.

More common collocations:

"she may have been" - 122,000 hits

"she may have seen" - 4,150 hits

"he may have seen" - 10,040 hits

"he may have been" - 338,000 hits

Just these five examples prove that Professor Darling is wrong when he misleads people [and himself] into thinking that tenseless 'may' cannot operate in the past time.

If we follow Professor Darling's convoluted logic, that, and I quote, "might + have + past participle is the past form", then when we apply it to sentence b.,

b. She may be my advisor next semester. , we get the nonsensical "past tense" of this as,

b. *She might have been my advisor next semester.*

{I've marked it ungrammatical for this meaning, which it CLEARLY is!!}

Why on earth don't these silly rules ever work out in REAL language? ##

-------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Darling's Point 3

Avoid confusing the sense of possibility in may with the implication of might, that a hypothetical situation has not in fact occurred. For instance, let's say there's been a helicopter crash at the airport. In his initial report, before all the facts are gathered, a newscaster could say that the pilot "may have been injured." After we discover that the pilot is in fact all right, the newscaster can now say that the pilot "might have been injured" because it is a hypothetical situation that has not occurred. Another example: a body had been identified after much work by a detective. It was reported that "without this painstaking work, the body may have remained unidentified." Since the body was, in fact, identified, might is clearly called for.

## This is for another day. I believe this was Casi's point that this, above, is the belief of a certain "dialect" of English. Maybe Casi could have a go at this one. Casi, if you would be so kind. ##