In Present tenses^x, Modal auxiliaries^x

Milky wrote:He has to go and He must go.> Well, I guess that would be part of the mastering part of the language - i.e. the complex part. It's easy for anyone to claim that English is not complex, or is much simpler than many other languages, if he/she avoids talking about mastering the...

Inchoateknowledge wrote:What does (simple) future tense mean in this sentence? The grammarian (it is a grammarian, isn't it?) you're quoting would probably tell you that there is no future tense. Many linguists claim English has only two tenses: Past and Non-past (sometimes called present)....

One such grammatical distinction causing much confusion is the use of the modal auxiliaries ‘may’ and ‘might’. 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...

When he returns to Manhattan 1000 years later it has been destroyed and rebuilt three times 2 What

Hi milky. (Have you given up our discussion on modal auxiliaries?) Tense is used for more than just time I think it's a good point. Quine once said: Our ordinary language shows a tiresome bias in its treatment of time. Relations of date are exalted grammatically (..). This bias is of...

I checked in a new book, "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language", which is intended as a rival to Quirk. Following is an excerpt concerning "had better". I don't understand most of it, but presumably Pemmican & Miriam will. I was surprised to see that dropping the "had", as in, "You...

Just change it into "I must go" - then it's easier to analyze: "go" here is the full verb that is in its infinitive and follows the modal auxiliary must - without to! I have to go: "have to" is the substitute form for "must", "go" again is the full verb in its infinitive. "Have to" here is a...