In his chapter on modal auxiliaries in The English Verb, Michael Lewis lists what he thinks are the basic semantic meanings for each. I cite those meanings below and ask if you agree with them.
Please remember, we are talking about the basic semantic meaning. In context, these auxiliaries take on wider meanings, but it is the basic meaning I want to discuss.
Paraphrased.
Can = I assert that it is possible that ...
Could = I assert that it is "remotely" possible that ...
May = If I have anything to do with it, it is possible that ...
Might = If I have anything to do with it, it is "remotely" possible that ...
Must = I assert that it is necessary that ...
Will = Given my percepton of the immediate situation, it is inevitable that ...
Would = Given the (hypothetical) situation which I perceive at the moment of speaking, the action described is also inevitably true.
Shall = According to my perception of the present situation, it is, if it's anything to do with me, inevitable that ...
From The English Verb by M Lewis. LTP 1986.
Should is dealt with seperately as it is a far more complex auxiliary and has many meanings.
Thanks.
Please remember, we are talking about the basic semantic meaning. In context, these auxiliaries take on wider meanings, but it is the basic meaning I want to discuss.
Paraphrased.
Can = I assert that it is possible that ...
Could = I assert that it is "remotely" possible that ...
May = If I have anything to do with it, it is possible that ...
Might = If I have anything to do with it, it is "remotely" possible that ...
Must = I assert that it is necessary that ...
Will = Given my percepton of the immediate situation, it is inevitable that ...
Would = Given the (hypothetical) situation which I perceive at the moment of speaking, the action described is also inevitably true.
Shall = According to my perception of the present situation, it is, if it's anything to do with me, inevitable that ...
From The English Verb by M Lewis. LTP 1986.
Should is dealt with seperately as it is a far more complex auxiliary and has many meanings.
Thanks.
Comments
1. The basic meaning of "can" and "could" is ability.
2. I don't see why "if I have anything to do with it" is included.
3. I don't see why "I assert" is included.
4. I find "inevitability" a good paraphrase for "will" / "shall".
CJ
Does this mean we should exclude will of ?
And what's the difference between and ?
I agree with you, Milky (and M.Lewis) in this respect:
I've heard that we should distinguish should from should, and ... as far as I remember ... there's some problematic point in the treatment of the latter.
1. Given my perception of the immediate situation, it is inevitable that you go.
My immediate reaction is to translate this back into English as 'I think you have no choice but to go', or 'in my opinion, you have to go'; or even 'I think you should go'. But not 'you will go'.
How do others read it?
MrP
2. Because the basic use of "may" is to give permission. Authority, on behalf of the speaker, whether real or imagined, allows him/her to say "if I have anything to do with it".
3. assert = to insist on having one's opinions, rights accepted. It also means the same as "to declare".
I insist that you...
You must...
I declare that you must...
4. Good.
Why should it?
Given my perception of the immediate situation, it is inevitable that I will go to the party.
And what's the difference between and ?
It is necessary that you go to the doctor, but you may choose to avoid doing so.
It is an inevitable, unavoidable thing that you will eventually see a doctor because you are extremely ill.
I agree on "should":
Should uses:
a)Epistemic = Recommended
b) Deontic = Expected or Advice
There are more uses.
My immediate reaction is to translate this back into English as 'I think you have no choice but to go', or 'in my opinion, you have to go'; or even 'I think you should go'. But not 'you will go'.
How do others read it?
MrP
Inevitabilty is related to the unavoidable future occurence.
Your above should be:
1. Given my perception of the immediate situation, it is inevitable that you will go. It will take place, in the opinion (modal) of the speaker.
"Will" connects two moments:that pertaining at the moment of speaking and a second one that is most commonly in the future.
It's too strong, isn't it (as MrP also pointed out)...? For example, according to your interpretation:
(1) I will go to see a doctor today.
(= It is an inevitable, unavoidable thing that you will eventually see a doctor because you are extremely ill.)
(2) I must go to see a doctor today.
(= It is necessary that you go to the doctor, but you may choose to avoid doing so.)
Right ...? And as to my previous question, intention?>, I'm not certain yet .... I had in mind the following pair of sentences:
(3) She will be a good doctor.
(4) I will be a doctor.
(We should exclude the , tense meaning of will here, of course.)
Can we apply M.Lewis's definition of will also to (4)?
.... it's for the first time in my life(?) to tread in the field of modality. Don't be too hard on me, please, everyone..!