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

Re: hope and sorry

CalifJim — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:15:23 GMT

Anonymous
Can a past tense follow the word 'hope'?
I hope you had a great time at the beach last week.

Yes. That's a frequent combination.

Anonymous
Can a present tense be used after the word 'sorry' eventhough the event for it has not occurred yet?

In some cases this is possible, but not in general. You would typically have some sort of modal verb there.

I'm sorry you are leaving us so soon.

I'm sorry you have to have such a serious operation next month.

I'm sorry you can't attend the party tonight.

conditional

Anonymous — Sun, 11 May 2008 09:41:16 GMT

Hi,

Are these all examples of the first conditional? If a if-clause is in the present tense, then any modal verbs can be used and it would still be a first conditional sentence? A zero conditional sentence is the one only states general rules and can't use modal verbs?

All first conditional??

If I hear from you before I leave, I would call you when I get home.

If I get a raise this month, I would buy a new car.

If I play soccer every two days, I might beat this illness.

If I work hard, I might/would get a raise before the end of this month.

Re: case of subjunctive in the 'if' clause?

CalifJim — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:15:22 GMT

It's not subjunctive. It's the modal use of need. Modal need can occur in non-assertive contexts. Modals never take the s in the first person singular of the present tense the way non-modal verbs do. In that way they resemble subjunctive forms, which are also missing the s.

The subject of the clause is missing, however (if it need be), but that's because if need be has become a fixed idiomatic expression.

Re: He's not/He isn't

CalifJim — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:50:14 GMT

Google counts, if you trust them:

he isn't 2,240,000
he's not 1,910,000

I would not consider this a significant difference.

I imagine the others that use the present tense of to be are about the same proportionally.

With modal verbs, however, the cases where the word not is isolated are far less common. Modals typically take the attached n't form.

CJ

Re: use of modal verb "could"

Marius Hancu — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:11:14 GMT

Neeraj Jain wrote:
Hi Maris,

If I have just one sentence:

I could play tennis well.

can it be used to refer to the present tense?

Strictly speaking, only to conditional future (or past, of course). See my examples above. Some see that as kind of a present.

Re: use of modal verb "could"

Neeraj Jain — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:32:36 GMT

Hi Maris,

If I have just one sentence:

I could play tennis well.

can it be used to refer to the present tense?

Re: "I thought..."

Loojka — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:46:58 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
After "mental" verbs in the past tense use the past tense or the past of a modal verb (e.g., would, might, could)

I [thought / believed / knew] (that)
you [were / would be / might be] late.

CJ

As I have said, I would also use the past tense here, but I wasn't sure about the possibility of using the present tense. And then I came across Mister Micawber's post in another thread:

Mister Micawber wrote:

I don't understand your question. These are right:

Did you know he likes me?
Did you know he is/has been/will be telling me something about you?
Did you know he told me something about you?

Can you use present or not?

Re: past perfect vs past in if-clause in type 2 conditional

yulysess — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:05:12 GMT

Let's spread out the issue a little bit:

____ O ____

Type 2. Basic forms.

a. If we caught the 10 o'clock train, we would (could, might,

etc.) get there by lunch-time.

b. If I came into a fortune, I would give up smoking.

c. If I knew how it worked, I could tell you what to do.

In these sentences the conditional clauses represent what is a possible, b hypothetical/imaginary, or c contrary to the present fact. The verb form in the conditional clause represents the attitude of the speaker towards the condition; it does not represent time, which is indicated by other elements in the context or situation.

Sentence a is analogous to type 1 (If we catch..., we shall get...), but is more suppositional. The speaker either regards catching that train as improbable, or he wishes to put forward in a more tentative or "polite" way the suggestion of catching it. It does not necessarily follow that the condition is in fact unlikely to be fulfilled.

Sentence b, on the other hand, is much more hypothetical: it is a form of day-dreaming in which we all indulge at times.

Sentence c presents us with totally imaginary (or unreal) situation with reference to the time of speaking: it implies that I don't, in fact, know how it works, so I can't tell you what to do. Note that the past tense is used here to indicate present unreality.

The three sentences are formally identical: they all have the same sequence of tenses:

(if) past tense, (main) conditional.

However, contextually they are rather different. They represent three points on a scale of decreasing probability, from a suppositional or tentative but possible, to b hypothetical but not impossible, to c contrary to present fact, and hence unreal.

Note that the conditional tense is not used in the conditional clause.

As we saw in example "c", the idea of something contrary to present fact is conveyed by the use of the past tense in the conditional clause. We also use the past tense to refer to present unreality after the verb "wish" (if only, also expresses the wish of the speaker), and after expressions like "I'd rather" and "It is time":

a. I wish (that) I were rich! (If only I were rich!)

b. I'd rather you told me frankly what you think.

c. It's time (It's about time, It's high time) we left.

We never use the present tense or a future form after wish. We use either the past tense as illustrated above, or we can use would (not will) to indicate that people or events frustrate our desires.

Type 2. Variations.

a. If we were to miss the 10 o'clock train, we wouldn't get there till after lunch.

The use of were to in the conditional clause sometimes has the effect of emphasizing the suppositional nature of the condition and, is in some ways analogous to the use of should in conditional clauses in TYPE 1: we can often substitute "by any chance" without changing the meaning: If by any chance we missed the 10 o'clock train, we wouldn't get there till after lunch.

Were to is used for all persons, and this variation may be applied to any conditional clause of this second type.

b. If you would reserve seats, we would be sure of a comfortable journey.

In this sentence. would is not a part of a conditional tense; it is a modal verb, and represents a more tentative (or polite) form of WILL as used in conditional clauses of type 1. It introduces the idea of your agreeing, or being willing, to do what is suggested. We cannot use this construction in the following sentence:

If he got my letters in time, he would be able to change his plans.

We cannot say

*If he would get my letter in time, since "he" can hardly exercise any willingness or unwillingness to get it.

You must, therefore, be careful to use "would" in this way only where the context will support the idea of co-operation, agreement, or willingness on the part of the subject.

Type 2. Summary of forms.

1. (If) past tense, (main) conditional.

If we caught the early train, we'd get there by lunch time.

2. (If) were to + infinitive, (main) conditional.

If we were to miss the early train, we wouldn't get there till after lunch.

3. (If) would + infinitive, (main) conditional.

If you'd cook the dinner, I'd do the washing up afterwards.

Type 3. Basic forms and variations.

a. If we had caught the 10 o'clock train, we would (could, might, etc.) have got there by lunch-time.

This sentence is completely hypothetical, and represents what is contrary to past fact. In this case, the past perfect tense is used to indicate past unreality -we didn't catch the 10 o'clock train, so we didn't get there by lunch time.

This is analogous to the use of the past tense to indicate present unreality in type 2c, and tense usage after the verb WISH follows the same pattern: we use the past perfect to refer to something wished-for in the past:

I wish you had told me before (but you didn't)

Variations on a sentence "a" are not very common, though sentences like the following are occasionally met with:

b. If you were to have asked me, I would have been only too willing to help.

Bibliography

R. A. Close (1975). A Reference Grammar for Students of English. Longman.

B.D. Graver (1979). Advanced English Practice. OUP

S.M. Parkinson (1983). A University English Grammar for Spanish-Speakers. Ed. EmpeÃ±o

R. Quirk et al. (1979). A Grammar of Contemporary English. Longman

W. Stannard Allen (1977). Living English Structure. Longman

M. Swan (1986). Practical English Usage. OUP

A.J. Thomson & A.V. Martinet (1982). A Practical English Grammar. OUP

______ O _______

Enjoy

Also look at the link Marius gave.

Re: "shall" and "will" for 18th century readers: interchangeable?

Intelligent Freak — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:43:23 GMT

Ok, I got it but I don't know how to put the link here so i'll just paste the context here. This was given by CalifJim as response to the subject "Conditional with Modal Verbs"...

Strictly speaking, the modals are not tensed. However, they developed historically from tensed verbs. Each group below shows a "historical present / past" pair.

can / could
shall / should
will / would
may / might
must - not paired

In modern English, any of these can be used in a single clause sentence, but when it occurs in just one of two or more clauses in the same sentence, it needs to be matched correctly with the tense in the other clause.

Typically, when the accompanying clause is an "if" clause, the historical present tense forms go with present tense verbs, and historical past tense forms go with past tense verbs. However, "could" and "might", meaning "may" ("it is possible"), can be used with present tense verbs (as well as with past tense verbs). "should" has lost most of its force as a past tense and is better thought of as a present tense form in modern English, meaning "it is advisable". ("shall" is the least used of the modals shown above.) The result of all these historical changes is that in modern English we have far more choices in sentences with a present point of view than in those with a past point of view.

With this in mind we have:

If she has [present] time, she [can, could, (shall), should, will, may, might, must] go to the party. [not "would']

If she had [past] time, she [could, would, might] go to the party. [not "should"]

For reported speech we have the pairs:

He says that he [can, could, (shall), should, will, would, may, might, must] go to the party.

He said that he [could, could, (shall), should, would, would, might, might, must] go to the party.

Note how "can", "will", and "may" are restricted to the present, and the corresponding forms "could", "would", and "might" are used to report "can" or "could", "will" or "would", or "may" or "might" in the past.

CJ

To Wuthering Heights , I hope I was able to help.

Re: subjunctive or past conditional

Bokeh — Tue, 08 May 2007 13:16:24 GMT

Taka wrote:
Remember, just because the modal verb 'would' appears in the main clause, this doesn't mean that the verb in the if clause must be in the subjunctive if the content of that clause is not presupposed to be false.

The above is related to the following example sentence:

He would always call her from the office if he was (not were) going to be late for dinner.

Note: The above example is a repetative action, not a hypothosis as in the OPs post. Repetative actions take the present tense.

Also from the same article:

if clausesâthe reality. In practice, of course, many people ignore the rules. In fact, over the last 200 years even well-respected writers have tended to use the indicative was where the traditional rule would require the subjunctive were. A usage such as: If I was the only boy in the world may break the rules, but it sounds perfectly natural.

Isn't that saying to use the indicative is wrong but widely accepted?