Search results for 'tag:Subjunctives tag:Modal auxiliaries' matching tags 'Subjunctives' and 'Modal auxiliaries'

Re: grammar questions

Mister Micawber — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 04:05:57 GMT

Lest 'tends to have a modal auxiliary or (esp in AmE) the present subjunctive' (Quirk, et al. 15.48)

He was scared lest the corpse be / should be removed.

Re: Is this subjunctive?

Grammarian-bot — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 02:11:01 GMT

Cool Breeze wrote:
Grammarian-bot wrote:
Congress is debating a bill requiring certain employers to provide workers with unpaid leave so that they can care for sick or newborn children.

I have a serious problem with deciding when to use prepositions before verbs and when not to. Any help/suggestions.

Hi GB

The to in your sentence isn't a preposition. It's a particle that is part of the infinitive. As a rule to is used

1. after verbs: I want to go there.
2. after nouns: I had an opportunity to visit Cairo.
3. after adjectives: It's easy to speak English.

Some common cases in which to is omitted:

1. after do, does, did: Did you see him? I do like that hat!
2. after a defective/modal auxiliary: I will see him tomorrow. Can you come with us?
3. after a verb denoting perception in the active voice: I heard him say that. I didn't see him come.
But: He was seen to come.
4. after make in the active voice: It made me smile. John's mother made him do his homework.
But: John was made to do his homework.
5. after let: Let me go! (Let is not used in the passive voice; allow or permit should be used instead: I was allowed/permitted to go out.
6. In question-like exclamations beginning with why if a verb follows immediately: Why do it now? Why not do it now?

There are other cases but you'll be just fine with these for a start.

If to is a preposition before a verb, the verb must have an ing-ending:

I am used to warm weather. (To is a preposition, we can tell that from the fact that warm is an adjective and weather is a noun.)
So: I am used to getting up early.

Cheers
CB

Great Job every one. Thanks a lot.

Cool Breeze, this post goes directly on my desktop.

Thanks a zillion.

GB

Re: Is this subjunctive?

Cool Breeze — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:26:15 GMT

Grammarian-bot wrote:
Congress is debating a bill requiring certain employers to provide workers with unpaid leave so that they can care for sick or newborn children.

I have a serious problem with deciding when to use prepositions before verbs and when not to. Any help/suggestions.

Hi GB

The to in your sentence isn't a preposition. It's a particle that is part of the infinitive. As a rule to is used

1. after verbs: I want to go there.
2. after nouns: I had an opportunity to visit Cairo.
3. after adjectives: It's easy to speak English.

Some common cases in which to is omitted:

1. after do, does, did: Did you see him? I do like that hat!
2. after a defective/modal auxiliary: I will see him tomorrow. Can you come with us?
3. after a verb denoting perception in the active voice: I heard him say that. I didn't see him come.
But: He was seen to come.
4. after make in the active voice: It made me smile. John's mother made him do his homework.
But: John was made to do his homework.
5. after let: Let me go! (Let is not used in the passive voice; allow or permit should be used instead: I was allowed/permitted to go out.
6. In question-like exclamations beginning with why if a verb follows immediately: Why do it now? Why not do it now?

There are other cases but you'll be just fine with these for a start.

If to is a preposition before a verb, the verb must have an ing-ending:

I am used to warm weather. (To is a preposition, we can tell that from the fact that warm is an adjective and weather is a noun.)
So: I am used to getting up early.

Cheers
CB

Modal + Perfect Infinitive = Meaning?

Brummel — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:37:20 GMT

Hello

I have trouble explaining modal auxiliaries to German speakers.

He must be drunk.

to put this into the past = He must have been drunk.

She should see the doctor.

this into the past = she should have seen the doctor.

But ....

He can play the piano

into the past =? #1. he can have played the piano.... or ......
#2. he could have played the piano..... or.......
#3. he could play the piano

#1 sounds strange to my English ears.
#2 is subjunctive isn't it?
#3 seems right but goes against trend with 'must' and 'should'

The word 'could' is both the simple past of can AND the subjunctive form of can, but I'm
not complaining. It is the only one of 'must', 'should' and 'can' which has a past form.
Perhaps therein lies the problem.

What are the detailed, (Oxford-)proper meanings of #1, #2 and #3?

wish?

Anonymous — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:37:38 GMT

I am studying the verb "wish". It is often followed by a clause in the subjunctive mood. I wonder only state verbs can appear in the clause in the past form, while action verbs must be proceded by a modal auxiliary verb.

I wish that I were a bird.

(1) I wish that I flew. (2) I wish I could fly. It seems to me (1) doesn't make a sense, (2) does.

(3) I wish that I moved to another planet. (4) I wish that I could move to another planet. "Move" is a verb that the action it represents is instant. In (3), "move" is treated as a regular occurance which tells the reader that "I often move", "moving is a regular activity for me." This inpretation is not what the speaker expects. From the above I thought that an action verb must be preceded by an auxiliary verb.

(5) I wish that I had moved to another planet. "Move" appears in the perfect form, which I interpret as a completed action. "I am on another planet." Actions verbs in the perfect form don't follow an auxiliary verb.

I'd like to hear your opinions to clarify the observation. Thanks a lot.

Re: Want to know more about conjunctive

paco2004 — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:41:37 GMT

Hellow Zewu

I'm an English learner from Japan. I am afraid I don't know much about English enough to answer such questions as those you are asking. But allow me to put my two cents worth.

First of all, let me define some grammatical terms. In English, people usually say 'subjunctive mood' for 'conjunctive mood' and 'past subjunctive' for 'imperfect conjunctive'.

Now your questions.
Basically English verbs have two tenses and three moods. The tenses are present and past, and the moods are indicative, subjunctive, and imperative. This basic frame of tense-mood relations has not changed through history. As you have already known well, in current English, the verb form for the present subjunctive is the same as the infinitive for all persons. The verb form for the past subjunctive is the same as that for the indicative past except in the case of 'be', whose past subjunctive is 'were' for all persons. One of the features of the subjunctive mood is that the verb form does not vary with persons, while the indicative mood does vary. This was true even in the Old English (the English before the Viking age), though there was a slight difference between singular and plural. The verb tellan (=tell), for example, conjugated as below.
     (EX) tellan (to tell)
     Ind/Pres   (Sg) 1. telle   2. tellest    3. telleth (Pl) 1. tellath 2. tellast 3. tellath
     Ind/Past   (Sg) 1. tealde 2. tealdest 3. tealde (Pl) 1. tealdon 2. tealdon 3. tealdon
     Sub/Pres   (Sg) telle (for all person) (Pl) tellen (for all persons)
     Sub/Past   (Sg) tealde (for all person) (Pl) tealden (for all persons)
     Imp/Pres   (Sg) 2 tell (Pl) 2 tellath
     Present Participle : tellende, Past Participle : getealde
In current English, the use of the subjunctive mood is very limited. It is used only in unreal conditional clauses and in some that-clauses that follows after certain verbs like 'demand', 'request', etc.. But in Old English, it was used much more frequently, since modal auxiliary verbs were yet to develop in Old English. For example, "He said that she were wise" was used in the sense of "He said that she would be wise" or "He said that she seemed to him wise". Finally, I would add one tip. In current English, past perfect tense is used sometimes in a way as if they were kind of past-past subjunctive, but this usage of perfect tense seems to have developed after the time of Chaucer.

If you would like to know more about this kind of stuff, please visit here, here, and here.

paco

Re: WEAKLY CONSTRAINED MODALS - "may" as expressing probability and possibi

rvw — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 06:07:34 GMT

I can only add a little toward the answers to your questions.

In general the modal auxiliaries are used to express not statements of fact but actions or events that exist only as conceptions of the mind -- possibilities, potentialities, necessities, wishes, whatever may or may not eventuate in the future...

The modals are regularly used in main clauses following conditions contrary to fact. If the condition is contrary to fact, the main statement cannot be actual, hence the modal....

---Understanding Grammar, by Paul Roberts.

A grammar-book-level, but thorough, discussion of the subjunctive mode and modal auxiliaries is in Chapters 8-10 at http://www.fortunecity.com/bally/durrus/153/gramtoc.html

Re: Need or needs?

Mister Micawber — Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:13:38 GMT

Not subjunctive, but a modal auxiliary. 'Need' can be used as either:

Modal auxiliary -- 'He need not worry about anything during his stay on Paradise Island.'
Main verb -- 'He does not need to worry about anything during his stay on Paradise Island.'

They carry the same meaning. Your test answer is correct (but arguing with a teacher offers certain dangers).

Re: Modals

zz — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:59:56 GMT

Hi, thanks to Learner for making the difference clear to me too. May I simply add general information that I read just now?

In grammar, a modal (short for modal auxiliary) is a verb such as can, could, may, might, must, ought, shall, should, will, or would. A modal is used with another verb to express grammatical moodâthat is, to indicate the speaker's attitude toward the factuality or likelihood of what is being
said:

(1) the indicative expresses objective fact (2) the imperative expresses a command or request (3) the subjunctive expresses something hypothetical or contrary to fact

Re: Question on using the word 'better'

pemmican — Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:01:29 GMT

I was a bit confused myself in the beginning becuase I thought that modals were just
can, could; may, might; will, would; must; shall, should.

These verbs are the "classical" modals, but every verb that expresses/describes the modus of a full verb is a modal verb:

I may go e.g. means I have the allowance to go (not: I do go, which would be indicative)
I must leave means I have to leave (not: I do leave)
-> here you can see that "can" and "must" express the mode of the full verbs go, and leave.

The same is still true for the substitutes of the classic modals:
"to have to" for must: I have to leave
"to be allowed to" for may: I'm allowed to go
-> These substitutes are still modals as they also express the modal character of a (full) verb.

Also "had better" expresses a modus of special full verb:
I had better go means the same as I should go (not: I do go).

All these verbs are also called "modal auxiliaries", which is a much better term:
The special modus, the full verbs are in (can go = having the ability to go; must go: having the necessity to go, etc.) is NOT expressed by an inflection of the particular verb itself (as it is done in indicative [he goes] and subjunctive mode [he were]), there is no extra paradigm for these modes, so helping verbs are necessary to express these special forms.

It's a bit difficult to explain this, but I hope I could do it properly