Search results for 'tag:Regards tag:Modals' matching tags 'Regards' and 'Modals'

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: "should" in subordinate clauses

Marius Hancu — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:16:11 GMT

CalifJim
Palmer (The English Verb) calls this 'evaluative' should. It has the same meaning as when the non-modal form is used, according to Palmer.
I'm surprised that you [should be / are] so foolish.

George Curme doesn't seem to agree with Palmer:

The past subjunctive is often used instead of the present indicative since the abstract principle is felt as more important than the concrete fact:

I regard it as the saddest of things that a man should be allowed to bring up his son in that way.

A Grammar of the English Language, by George Curme, vol II, p. 417
--

and Curme's very detailed on the subjunctive.

Re: the tense

Doll — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:57:58 GMT

Hello New Guest,

I really understand what you are looking for because when I was at intermediate level, I was questioning everything like you and interested in thinking every sentence in detail. Past perfect tense was my favourite.I questioned and thought about its usage for years because it wasn't an existing tense in my native language. I felt inefficient when I didn't use past perfect or had questions about it in my mind. To tell the truth, sometimes I still have. This is because I learn English as a foreign language and I don't have a native spaking environment key which will open the doors of questions so, it takes ,really, years to completely grab the real and accurate usage of something. This goes for present perfect tense and modals too. The thing you should do, if you care what I say, just to be patient. After years, I am sure, you will regard both tenses same even the past simple better in similar contexts as your original question.

One more thing, your thinking too much analytical on grammatical forms of the language may be an effect of your English teacher. You know, they do unnecessary exams and want you to find the right choice and want you make a discrimination between whether to use simple past or perfect though sometimes both can be used. To be frank, I still suffer from this. I am still too analytic.

Re: the purpose of would have+p.p.

Avangi — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:07:33 GMT

CalifJim
That would be Della's car. ~ That is probably Della's car. That is most likely Della's car.
That would have been Della's car. ~ That was probably Della's car. That was most likely Della's car.

CJ

Hi Jim,

Don't know anything about "modals", and this probably begs the question, but my sense of this construction has always been that there's absolutely no doubt in the mind of the speaker. He knows something which is unknown to the person or group he's addressing. Based either on information they've given him, or on facts evident to them all, he makes an induction of which he is sure. The reason "is" or "was" doesn't apply is because it's not necessarily evident to the group he's addressing, although he could have chosen "is" or "was."

My question is, is doubt an essential quality of the construction in current usage, and if so, is it doubt in the mind of the speaker or some kind of logical doubt based on context - or something else?

It would be different if he said, "I think/believe that would be Della's car.

Best regards, - A.

Re: look forward to (be/being) ?

Teo — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:45:26 GMT

The word "to" is often confusing in English. It can be used as part of a modal expression, infinitive or as a preposition.

Note the usage of "to" in the following sentences.

To V

I used to live in Utah.

I am supposed to go.

I hope to see you.

To V ing

I am used to living in Utah.

I am opposed to going.

I look forward to seeing you.

Modal expressions are always followed by the base form of the verb.

ought to

have to

have got to

used to

be to

be able to

be supposed to

be going to

Similar expressions are followed by infinitives (to + V)

need to V

want to V

hope to V

happen to V

mean to V

tend to V

care to V

wish to V

would like to V

be allowed to V

be inclined to V

be reluctant to V

be willing to V

be happy to V

be afraid to V

be required to V

be delighted to V

be compelled to V

Many prepositional combinations using "to" are followed by gerunds.

look forward to V ing

resort to V ing

submit to V ing

confess to V ing

give in to V ing

admit to V ing

with regards to V ing

be accustomed to V ing

be addicted to V ing

be opposed to V ing

be limited to V ing

be dedicated to V ing

be commited to V ing

be used to V ing

If you have questions or comments about this page, please contact us.
Be sure to include the title of this page in the Subject line of your e-mail.

http://www.eslgold.com/grammar/tov_not_tov.html

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

CalifJim — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 22:41:45 GMT

I am trying to formulate guidelines for learners of English as a foreign language with regards the use of may/might/could to express possibility. It seems to me that you can use these three modals (almost) interchangeably when expressing possibility.

For example, 'Where's Mary?' 'I'm not sure. She may/might/could be in her room.' or 'It may/might/could rain later on.'.

Are there any differences in use between these three modals? If so, what are they?

I assume your question is restricted to the "unconstrained modals of logic", and that you are not asking about the use of may for permission or could for ability, for example. There are a few differences, particularly with respect to could, which is, in my opinion, only an "honorary" member of the group.

1. could does not operate under negation in the same way as may and might. Whereas may not and might not express the possibility of the negated proposition, could not expresses impossibility unless some unusual stress pattern is provided by the speaker, maybe even with a slight pause after could.

She may be there. She might be there. She could be there.
She may not be there. She might not be there. *She could not be there. (in the intended reading) (Actually, even may not is a little suspect, as the 'permission' meaning of may might come through in that example.)

2. could almost requires a following be (in the intended reading).

The puppy is thin; he [might / may / could] be [hungry / lost / a stray].
That music sounds like a symphony; it [might / may / could] be by Mozart.
Susan says that the answer is 67, and she [might / may / could] be right.

Otherwise the unintended 'ability' reading or some other anomalous interpretation is too likely:

The drain is blocked; we [might / may / ?could] have to call a plumber.
Liz looks tired; she [might / may / ?could] want to take a nap.
The current rules are too confusing, so the committee [might / may / ?could] develop new rules.

There seems to be no problem if the verb is meteorological, however, because the 'ability' reading is blocked. The weather is not physically able to do things as an agent:

It [might / may / could] rain this afternoon.

The same reasoning applies with other non-agentive situations:

The cake is too big, but the cookies [might / may / could] fit in this box.

3. Unlike might and may, could does not occur with as well. This was mentioned in another post above. (It's debatable whether this is even a case of the "unconstrained modals of logic", but I'll mention it here anyway.)

This party is really dull; we [might / may / *could] as well leave.

4. In American English, the difference between may and might is one of register. may occurs in official announcements and scientific papers, for example, and might occurs more often in ordinary conversation. (Percentages of probability have nothing to do with it!)

Employees may find this information helpful in choosing a health care plan.
For hydrocarbon molecules of this type, electrophoresis may give better results.
We might take a trip to Disneyland this summer.

could would probably not be used in any of the three examples immediately above (in the intended reading).

5. may is not often used in backshifts, but both might and could are.

I [might / may / could] be ready by 10.
I thought (that) I [might / *may / could] be ready by 10.

Re: grammar exercise

Feebs11 — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:33:21 GMT

Hela wrote:
Dear teachers,

Would you please correct this exercise for me?

Fill in with the right preposition (simple or multiword) and put the verbs in the right tense or form:

In the morning I arrived I went to call for [on] Hislop. [is this structure correct with no commas at all? yes] He (modal + not + pretend) could not pretend he (not know) did not know me, but he behaved as though he knew nothing about what I (do) would do. When I asked for permission to stay, he said it was out of his hands. He said the merchants (not want) would not want me (land) to land [meaning?Difficult to tell - usually in this form it means to arrive on shore from a boat, or to land a plane on the ground]. They had made a petition to him. They said that for six months they had been cut off from trade with the Main because of me, and [now] they (ruin) were ruined for nothing at all. The petition (debate) was debated that very morning in the Council. Hislop thought I (modal + attend) should not attend the meeting. I suppose that was friendly advice. If I (not go) did not got, perhaps Bernard (not speak up) would not speak up, the vote (go) would NOT (?) go against me [This sentence is obscure. Who is Bernard and why is he speaking for or against you?]. Hislop (be) was full of regrets, of course, but I (modal + leave) would not leave. Heaven (know) knows where I would have been now.

Best regards,

Hela

grammar exercise

Hela — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:31:57 GMT

Dear teachers,

Would you please correct this exercise for me?

Fill in with the right preposition (simple or multiword) and put the verbs in the right tense or form:

In the morning I arrived I went to call for Hislop. [is this structure correct with no commas at all?] He (modal + not + pretend) could not pretend he (not know) did not know me, but he behaved as though he knew nothing about what I (do) would do. When I asked for permission to stay, he said it was out of his hands. He said the merchants (not want) would not want me (land) to land [meaning?]. They had made a petition to him. They said that for six months they had been cut off from trade with the Main because of me, and [now] they (ruin) were ruined for nothing at all. The petition (debate) was debated that very morning in the Council. Hislop thought I (modal + attend) should not attend the meeting. I suppose that was friendly advice. If I (not go) did not got, perhaps Bernard (not speak up) would not speak up, the vote (go) would NOT (?) go against me. Hislop (be) was full of regrets, of course, but I (modal + leave) would not leave. Heaven (know) knows where I would have been now.

Best regards,

Hela

Re: Modal verbs

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:44:56 GMT

Thanks MrP,

I appreciate your reply. I have to admit, I'm finding it hard to justify the difference in meaning between the two, and those sentences aren't the best examples. But, I am convinced there is a difference. If I say have to/must to myself a couple of times, I find there is a definite difference in meaning, a difference that is not interchangeable.

If people have merely accepted over time that there's little difference between must and have to then so be it. But to me the difference is clear: what will -actually- happen if you don't do what you must/have to do. What will be the outcome? Is there an external influence involved?

With respect, my argument may not be unequivocal but since when was "current usage" a reasonable guide to linguistic accuracy and clarity of thought. It's like saying there's no difference between infer and imply. Of course there's a difference. It's just that it has been clouded by illiteracy. Current usage allows crap like "I'm loving it"...

Kind regards

Re: Native opinion needed! a modal guestion

Clive — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:35:52 GMT

Hi,

'Soon' is commonly used to relate to a point in the future that is close to 'now'.

It's true that you can use 'soon' to refer to the past.

eg I began to learn Chinese in 1980. Soon, I was fluent.

However, as shown in this example, you need to make it clear that 'soon' relates to a time close to 1980. In other words, you need to make it clear that your context is the past.

Now let's look at Gamze and Murat must have broken up soon; they both seem very sad and I hardly ever see them together anymore.

To say the first part, you'd need earlier to have mentioned some point in the past, to which the reader can relate the term 'soon'.

In addition, in the second part you'd need to say something to make clear to the reader that you are shifting the reference to 'now' into the past. I would also replace the semi-colon by a period, to weaken the temporal aspect of the link between the two parts of the sentence.

For the meaning you are thinking of with regard to option A, I'd write something like this.

When I visited Gamze and Murat last Spring, they seemed happy. They must have broken up soon after (that). Now they both seem very sad and I hardly ever see them together anymore.

Best wishes again, Clive