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

Can

Anonymous — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:09:10 GMT

Hi,

I was looking for help on the Englishpage.com website on its Modal Verb Tuturial on the modal verb 'can' and seem to have found that they use categories to explain the various uses of 'can'. One category is 'can' as 'opportunity' -- and gave this example:

I have some free time. I can help her now.

Now, if you look at the two sentences together and look for the overall context, the 'opportunity' part comes out clearly, but if you exclude the first sentence and only look at the second sentence, which is 'I can help her now', it looks like it is talking about 'ability'. Should I look at the overall context when following up on the recommendations, if that is what can be called, or focus on a single sentence, which might render a different interpretation of the category or render a different impression of the category indicated?

I seem to have similar confusion over some other categories in regard to modals 'can' and 'could' there if I am not mistaken too

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: 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: 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

Re: Plesae explain this.

Mr Patrick — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:32:05 GMT

Hi Sabyakgp,

As Nona rightly points out, in your first example the modal verb "would" is used to express how the described conditions are related to a previous decision taken by his minders. But while Nona interprets the would as expressing uncertainty about what actually happened, I am more inclined to perceive it as a tool to highlight the obligation itself.

Present, the bailiff speaking: "Inmate Shipman, you will have no TV in your cell!"

Past: The bailiff decided that inmate Shipman would have (had) no TV in his cell.

Of course, would have had to wear prison uniform AND had to wear prison uniform sound roughly the same, as they both imply an obligation. Would have had no TV in his cell also shows this obligation, but had no TV in his cell does not express any obligation at all.

Your new example seems to be a clear case of the principle that Nona proposed:

face transplant, according to the surgeons who say they could carry it out, would involve removing the face of a dead person and placing it on someone who is still alive.The donor and patient would have similar skin tone and the same blood type and would be of comparable age.....

This type of surgery is by no means straight-forward. Nerves in the muscle would have to be attached to nerves in the patient's head.

Here, the journalists are saying that they are relying on the data provided by the surgeons. If would were to be replaced by will, the journalist would be accepting responsibility for all of these affirmations. The way it stands, they are only relating an interview or conversation.

Regards, Patrick

Re: Past Perfect

paco2004 — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:20:48 GMT

JTT

... we regard modal verbs as unmarked for tense

What you are (or the book is) saying is just about epistemic modals. Some root modals like 'will' (futurity) or 'can' (ability) have tense finiteness. So your saying cannot be generalized for all modals.

I agree most epistemic modals are free from 'tense', though still we cannot use some modals such as 'will' and 'can' for talking about the event that happened in the past even when they are used as epistemic modals. Anyway what epistemic modals connote is only the feeling/though the speaker has NOW, or more precisely speaking, during the time the speaker is uttering the sentence.

What I argued against in the previous messages is about your assertion that "I would save some dollars" contains a future meaning. Suppose a boy utter; 'I would save 50 cents if I didn't buy this popsicle now'. This means 'NOW I think that I can save 50 cents in the case I don't spend the 50 cents on this popsicle NOW'. This boy is not saying anything about future. It would be possible to suppose a situation he spends that 50 cents a few minutes later to buy some other sweet after he abandoned the idea of buying that popsicle. So I can't agree with your assertive saying that "I would save some dollars" contains a future meaning.

paco

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."

Re: Past Perfect

just the truth — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 07:07:33 GMT

Paco: How about the case of "I would have saved 50 cents if I hadn't bought that popsicle yesterday"? Do you insist that ESLs should believe has a sense of future in this case too?

Paco, take a step back, take a deep breath and look once more at your sentence. There is the addition of "have saved". Modal perfect structures are used to describe past/potential past situations. But the 'would' is NOT there to signify past tense. It's there to espress modality, the feelings of the speaker.

If you can't let go of old mistakes, Paco, and you want to go on believing them, I can't help you, but to do so only puts your true understanding of English at peril.

^^^^^^^^^^
"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]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Re: Can / Could and Will / Would

MrPedantic — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:09:41 GMT

If it looks like a past tense, acts like a past tense, and has the 'semantic role' of a past tense â it's a past tense. What other criteria are there?

## JTT: It's these looks that are deceiving you, MrP. ##

You haven't answered the question, JT. What are the other criteria?

This is a quaintly primitive form of argument:

'The relationship of X to Y is not Z, because the relationship of A to B is not Z.'

Consult a good dictionary, under 'sympathetic magic'.

## JTT: This is no argument at all. Instead of showing why The Grammar Book is wrong, Mr P relies on smoke and mirrors, more pedantry designed to lead away from the issues rather than address them. We see, CLEARLY, [though Mr P has decided to ignore it with his tangents] that this doesn't apply equally to all the modal pairs.

I'll put it another way. The way X behaves is only relevant to the way Y behaves if we have already defined the connection between X and Y. In this instance, the connection between X (can/could) and Y (any other modal verb) depends on our answers to questions ABC (how do these verbs operate, with regard to tense?). We can't therefore use the connection between X and Y to answer ABC. (It's called a 'circular reference'.)

2.
a. 'When I have the use of my legs, I can swim.'
b. 'When I had the use of my legs, I could swim.'
c. 'When I have the use of my legs, I could swim ... .'

## JTT: An ability that was available to that person in the past. This is hardly the same thing as a past tense. And in sentence c. we have 'could' operating in a future with the same meaning as 'can' in 2a. but with a different nuance. ##

'Can/could' deals with 'ability': it = 'to be able to', to know how to'. Thus:

2d. 'When I have the use of my legs, it is possible for me to swim.'
2e. 'When I had the use of my legs, it was possible for me to swim.'

The ability was available to the person in the past. 'Can/could' is the carrier of 'possibility' in this sentence. 'Could' can't be replaced with 'can' in 2b. 'Was possible' can't be replaced with 'is possible' in 2e. Therefore that which denotes 'the ability that was available in the past' is 'could' in 2b and 'was possible' in 2e.

Which is the same as saying 'could is the past tense of can'.

MrP