Search results for 'tag:Present perfect tag:Modal verbs' matching tags 'Present perfect' and 'Modal verbs'

Re: Conditional Sentence

CalifJim — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:26:19 GMT

eagerness
the day after it actually happened

Then it's wouldn't.

Though some variation is possible in the right situation, the typical groups of tenses that go together in the same sentence are:

Present perfect - Present - Future of the Present (will) - Most modal verbs, including can, may, must, should

Past Perfect - Past - Future of the Past (would) - could, should, might

conditional

Anonymous — Wed, 28 May 2008 07:44:17 GMT

Hi,

A:How is it different? Is the zero conditional and the second and third ones type 1? I think CalifJim told us that the modal 'can' counts as present.

1.If you can make money, please use the money to help people.

2. If you can make money, use money to help people.

3. If you can make money, you will be able to help people.

Can we use a modal verb like can, may, should in the if-clause or the main clause, as well as going to future or present continuous future, as well as a present perfect in the if-clause for both zero and first conditionals? We can't seem to be able to use all those for type 2 and 3 conditionals. sorry for asking many questions.

B:Does this mixed conditional show ongoing circumstances in relation to a event happened in the past OR does it indicate a past result by a present hypothetical situation as I thought it was?

If you weren't such a bad singer, You would have gotten a job as a professional singer.

If you weren't so occupied with you work, you would have seen him trying to steal your money.

Re: Questions on sentences in article

Susankay — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:32:29 GMT

When we talk with biblical precision about the resurrection, we discover an excellent foundation for lively and creative Christian work in the present world--not, as some suppose, for an escapist or quietist piety.

Here, the word 'piety' seems to be uncountable, yet seems that the article 'an' is for that. Why? This is a general question but "Can a person use an indefinite article like 'a' when he thinks an instance of something or a type of something in his mind? I think it should be "or for quietist piety.'

No single individual can attempt more than a fraction of this mission. That's why mission is the work of the whole church, the whole time. Paul's advice to the Philippians ~~even though he and they knew they were suffering for their faith and might be tempted to retreat from the world into a dualistic, sectarian mentality~~was upbeat. Might just means "there was the possibility for them to be tempted"

Here, I think it is right to say that in 'might be tempted', the 'might' is used to convey the sense of the past, putting his indecisive intention in the past-time setting; but I think it is safe to say that the word 'might' can be used the same or similarly in the present-time setting. But here, I think it is used in the in the past-time setting. I think you can see a similar use with the modal verb 'would'.

It is the anticipation of the time when God will fill the earth with his glory, transform the old heavens and earth into the new, and raise his children from the dead to populate and rule over the redeemed world he has made.

Here, I think 'he has made' is used because eventhough the reference is to what was made a very, very long time ago, the happening carries a current relevance to what the writer is tryng to say and that is why the present perfect was used. Right? Why do I see 'heavens' in plural, not 'heaven' in singular? The redeemed world he has made - yes it denote present perfect.

This is another question: Can you use a present perfect to refer to a historical figure who happened to live very, very long ago or his legacy?

Yes, if your believe that historical figure is God who lived, is living and will live forever.

Questions on sentences in article

Believer — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:49:28 GMT

Hi,

I gotthe following sentences from the ChristianToday magazne, a magazine of evangelical conviction, by N.T. Wright on March 25, 2008, and hope you would answer some questions on them.

This is another question: Can you use a present perfect to refer to a historical figure who happened to live very, very long ago or his legacy?

Sorry for many questions

Re: Talking cats

Kooyeen — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:11:04 GMT

I saw that video on Google some time ago... it's weird! LOL
My cat can only say "meow". I tried to teach her some English, but she doesn't understand the present perfect and I don't know how make it clear to her. And she can't even understand the basic modal verbs! So I think I'll just let her say "meow"...

Re: "Could" or "Could have"?

Believer — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 07:54:16 GMT

Thank you, all.

Let me go back and correct what I have said. I think now that the underlined part is sort of a modal verb expressing the sense of the past. I think it was naive (and wrong) for me to have said that 'have had' part was a present perfect.

That was the best salary I could have had at the time.

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

Conditional dilemma I

Believer — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 03:48:52 GMT

Hi,

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.

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, 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.

have become in the main clause is present perfect and IMO, the present perfect is used to note the fact that something has some kind of relevance to the present and would wouldn't affect that aspect of the sentence in any way.

Normally, when you hear 'I have become a successful person', it means he is alive and became a successful person, which seem to be the relevant part that makes the use of the present perfect possible.

I am sorry if my question isn't lucid enough but hoping for the best.

Re: could

Anonymous — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:49:05 GMT

"Could" is the past form of the modal verb can. Modal verbs convey "mood" or idea. Unlike other verbs modals do not have continuous or perfect aspect (He is coulding / He has coulden). In the sentence "Yes, but you could have taken a taxi." could conveys the meaning of possibility (it was possible for you to catch a taxi and, therefore, attend the meeting). The main verb is "take"

"could have taken" is the present perfect simple form of the verb phrase (modal + present perfect). Present Perfect forms are used to talk about past and present time simultaneously and is the correct form to use here because Allen is mildly, and indirectly, admonishing Kim in the present for an act, or failure to act, in the past.

"Could" can have future meaning (It could rain tomorrow) but its function here is to convey possibility/probability; the idea of future is carried by "tomorrow". It is often used to talk about past ability (When I was young I could run very fast).

Re: Plesae explain this.

Sabyakgp — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:28:58 GMT

Thanks a lot again for all your help. "Would" seems to be the most confusing modal verb in English grammer and trying hard to learn the correct usages of this mysterious word .

As Nona said. they might have used "Would have had to" to express the uncertainty, in that case, Can we use "had had to" to express certainty ,I said "had had to" because here everything happened before he died (past event) so we may not use "Had to" here which past simple. Is it correct ?

My grandfather died at the age of 64, he had had severe nerual problems and had had to take a lot of medicine before he died (here speaker knows what exactly had happened to his grandfather before he died).

My grandfather died at the age of 64, he had had severe nerual problems and would have had to take a lot of medicine before he died (Here speaker is sure that his grandfather had nerual problems but not sure whether he had taken a lot of medicine for that or not , may be he was not born that time, he heard from his father).

I just phrased these above sentences to show my understanding, could you plesae tell me whether its correct.

As Mr. Patrick said, in that face transplant report, "Would" is used in present context (correct me if i am wrong) and expressed imagination of the speaker. Past of "Would" in this context is "Would be" and present perfect would be "Would have" and past perfect would be "Would have had". Is my understanding correct ?

Mr. Patrick has also said that "Had to" and "Would have had to" sound roughly same, i think "had to" is past simple which could replaced with "Would have to", Can you plesae tell me the difference between "had to" , "Would have to" and "Would have had to" ? I apologize for Troubling you a lot, i am just trying to learn correct English.

Regards.

Sabya