+0
In the following expressions 'should' is an auxiliary, helping verb and 'go' main, primary verb.

1: You should go.
1a: You shouldn't go.

In '3' and '3a' 'need' has taken rare role of helping verb. Is it a modal verb in '2' and '2a', epressing general mood of a person, situation, etc? And would you please mind telling me if the last two sentences are idiomatic? Thank you, very much.

2: You need to go.
2a: You need not to go.
3: You need go.
3a: You needn't go.
1 2
Comments  
The only one that's not idiomatic to my ear is 2a. It sounds absolutely wrong.

3a. was common where I grew up, in New England. I suppose now it's a bit old fashioned.

3. is rare indeed, but I'd say it's possible.
Jackson66122a: You need not to go.
Avangi is of course right. 2a is wrong because you have negated need without using don't: You don't need to go. Negating need without don't is fine but you cannot have to in that case. If you use need like a defective auxiliary (can, could; will, would; may, might; shall, should; must), you must omit to:

I will not go there. (Not: I will not to go there.)
You shouldn't do it. (Not: You shouldn't to do it.)
Similarly: You need not do it.

The only defective auxiliary with which to is used is ought: You ought to go there.

Jackson66123: You need go.

This looks grammatical. After all, we can say: You can go. / You may go. / You should go.
However, need is rarely used in affirmative sentences in this way. In fact, many grammarians consider this usage incorrect for the simple reason that it isn't used even though it doesn't violate the rules that govern the usage of the defective auxiliaries - or modal auxiliaries, if you find that term more familiar.

Need is normally used in questions and negative clauses:
Need you go there? (= Do you need to go there? Do you have to go there?)

You need not go there. (= You don't need to go there.)

CB
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Cool BreezeHowever, need is rarely used in affirmative sentences in this way. In fact, many grammarians consider this usage incorrect for the simple reason that it isn't used even though it doesn't violate the rules that govern the usage of the defective auxiliaries - or modal auxiliaries, if you find that term more familiar.
I remember reading (in Swann's book, most likely) that need can be used as a modal verb in positive sentences when they contain an adverb carrying a negative meaning. The example the book gave was something like

You need only see her!
Hi,

Needn't is used as helping verb in the question tags.

Example: I must go, needn't I ( but not mustn't I )
sreesriHi,
Needn't is used as helping verb in the question tags.
Yes, true.

Question tags constitute a type of questions, and CB has already pointed out that need is usually used as a modal verb in questions and negative sentences.
Cool BreezeNeed is normally used in questions and negative clauses:
Need you go there? (= Do you need to go there? Do you have to go there?)
You need not go there. (= You don't need to go there.)
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
sreesriNeedn't is used as helping verb in the question tags.

Example: I must go, needn't I ( but not mustn't I )
I would NEVER say this. (I'd use the tag in parentheses!)
TanitYou need only see her!
This one I like!
Cool BreezeIf you use need like a defective auxiliary (can, could; will, would; may, might; shall, should; must), you must omit to:

I will not go there. (Not: I will not to go there.)
You shouldn't do it. (Not: You shouldn't to do it.)
Similarly: You need not do it.
Thank you, everyone.

2: You need to go.

2a: You don't need to go.
3: You need go.
3a: You needn't go.

Now it seems in '2' and '2a' 'need' is simply functioning as a usual, intrasitive verb as 'want', 'I want to go'. Do I have it correct?

Above, I just said 'intransitive', I think I'm little confused between 'transitive' and 'intrasitive'. Isn't 'to eat' an object of the verb 'want' in 'I want to eat'? Is it 'to', likely to be a preposition here, breaking the link of the verb with its object? If this is the case, then should I conclude that a preposition is not to come between a transitive verb and its object, otherwise it's an intrasitive? Is there something else which I need to know? Please guide me. Thanks, in anticipation.

Hi Jackson

By coincidence, I just happened to check my e-mail a few minutes after you posted your questions. I'll try and reply to them but I won't be around for a few hours should you have further questions. I'm taking a boat trip to one of the dozens of Helsinki islands as the 7 o'clock morning temperature in Helsinki was 26C and the day is going to be boiling hot.

Need is indeed used as an ordinary verb in 2 and 2a, meaning the infinitive that follows need has the to particle. To isn't a preposition before an infinitive. If to were a preposition, the gerund would have to be used, as in: I am used to taking long walks. But: I need to take a long walk now.
Jackson6612Isn't 'to eat' an object of the verb 'want' in 'I want to eat'?
Yes, at least in my grammatical thinking to eat is the object of want. To eat is an infinitive and to isn't a preposition, it's a particle - in Scandinavia, anyway. I'm not sure if it is called that in Britain and America, though.

Grammatical labels aren't important. What matters is how words and structures are used, not what they are called.

CB
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Show more