Strona w budowie
Modal verbs can mediate between grammatical Time and Aspect. The name „modal” comes from the Latin word „modus”, meaning an extent or measure. Modal verbs are quite a challenge, but we can include them and associate with our logic. For example, if we say the verbs be and have may build the Progressive and Perfect tenses, we exclude any implication the verbs be and have might always do so.
Modal forms do not belong clearly with the PRESENT, PAST or FUTURE. In Chapter 2, we viewed the verb form WILL in the Fields of Time.
Some grammars will name Modals defective verbs. They do not have all the three forms. The picture below shows the verb to write.
Modal verbs may dare our spears, especially on the syntax we can associate with the 3rd form. We yet may learn to enhance our language economies, with Modal verbs. The challenge would be to a good result.
We can try to view Modals as in a chart, to compare them with other verbs. Appendix 1 tells about verbs generally.
REGULAR VERB: TO TRAVEL
INFINITIVE to travel
1ST FORM travel 2ND FORM traveled 3RD FORM traveled
ACTIVE PARTICIPLE traveling PASSIVE PARTICIPLE traveled
IRREGULAR VERB: TO WRITE
INFINITIVE to write
1ST FORM write 2ND FORM wrote 1ST FORM written
ACTIVE PARTICIPLE writing PASSIVE PARTICIPLE written
OUR VIRTUAL REGULAR VERB: TO BIMO
INFINITIVE to bimo
1ST FORM bimo 2ND FORM bimoed 1ST FORM bimoed
ACTIVE PARTICIPLE bimoing PASSIVE PARTICIPLE bimoed
1ST FORM may 2ND FORM might
1ST FORM can 2ND FORM could
1ST FORM shall 2ND FORM should
1ST FORM need 2ND FORM (needed) 3RD FORM (needed)
1ST FORM must 2ND FORM (must)
1ST FORM will 2ND FORM would
Second forms of the verbs need and must require some more language traveling. First four parts of our journey are to present language to the Upper Intermediate level, as to help graduate from high school language level. Two further parts are to show university, literary and scientific, competence in American English.
Modal verbs can be truly unlike other verbs.
They do not have Infinitive forms.
We do not say * „to may”.
They do not have Participle forms.
We do not say * „mayed” or * „maying”.
They do not use will for their grammatical FUTURE reference.
We do not say * „will may”.
Their PAST forms may refer to the grammatical PRESENT.
We could say, “You might think about reading this all”.
We may envisage Modals in groups. We can name the groups.
POTENTIALITY PROBABILITY CONTINGENCY CERTAINTY
We can think about Modal verbs as telling the fashion or manner.
POTENTIALITY: Our potential is what we are actually able to do, or something we have real prospects to become able to do. Something potential is something that actually might come into existence.
PROBABILITY: It belongs mostly with guesswork. Humans happen to consider probability in theory making. Possibility is a close synonym. We can have it for equivalent with probability, in language work.
Let us think about Madame Règle. She has the potential to have lunch at Latimer Sauf’s restaurant every day. He always has a table for his friends and she has enough money. However, her work with Paris haute couture designers often keeps her over the lunchtime. Her coming to lunch is probable, but not certain.
CERTAINTY: It requires both potentiality and probability. Let us think about Monsieur Sauf’s birthday. Madame Règle will come to meet him. It is certain.
CONTINGENCY: Some books will have something contingent for something likely, and some will say it is something unlikely to happen. We tend to tell likelihood by how often something takes place. Madame Règle has a resolve here. Words have etymologies. The adjective “contingent” comes from the Latin words tangere, tangens. The words meant “to touch”, “touching”. Madame Règle has contingency for something touching on, dependent on something else. Let us mind that cause and effect hardly ever depend on simple factors.
We can view our Modalities as interrelated. Contingency needs a potential to do something. What is certain has to be probable.
Modals can express varying degrees of potential, probability, contingency, and certainty. We may picture them as similar to a spectrum. Rainbows show spectra of colors (the word “spectrum” comes from Latin and it may have a Latin plural).
We can look to volition, building our Modal spectrum. Everyone is free to build own spectrum.
CAN/COULD MAY/MIGHT WILL/WOULD SHALL/SHOULD OUGHT TO NEED MUST HAVE TO
Let us think about POTENTIALITY. When we speak about our potential, we can say what we are able to do. For this, we use mostly MAY and CAN.
We are able to do things only in probable circumstances, even if our abilities are outstanding. MAY and CAN are our most prominent words for PROBABILITY, too. MAY is going to sound a bit more formal. CAN is going to be more colloquial. CAN happens to express a probability greater than MAY.
We also have a few Modals to choose from, when we speak about CONTINGENCY. They are need, must, should, have to, and ought to. We always use ought to with the Infinitive (we ought to learn, we ought to work). The Modal WILL might not get along well with CONTINGENCY for us, independence-loving people (!)
What Modal verbs can we use for CERTAINTY? We can use the same Modals as for CONTINGENCY, plus our good acquaintance, the Modal verb WILL. We humans can be certain about own volition. Let us now think about verbs and time.
POTENTIALITY ― the PRESENT time extent
21. You MAY use the phone.
21a. You CAN use the phone
We have done some work on the verb phrase. Some phrases had the Modal verbs CAN or MAY (Exercise 42 in Chapter 7.1, for example). We have regarded phrase first element, to combine the grammatical Aspect and Time (Chapter 8.1). The exercise about the grain of sand shows the verbs can and will changing for the grammatical Time.
So far, all our contexts allowed second forms, as COULD or MIGHT, to work in the PAST time compass. However, is it enough to use second forms of Modals, to get to the PAST?
21b. You MIGHT use the phone.
21c. You COULD use the phone.
It might be not enough to put Modal verbs into their second forms to change the time capability. The second (PAST) forms may show another, very close part of our Modality spectrum, and yet stay in the PRESENT.
21b. You MIGHT use the phone (a tentative suggestion in the PRESENT.)
21c. You COULD use the phone (a tentative suggestion in the PRESENT.).
Much of the above is a strong challenge on our darts: how do we use our arrow cues for the FUTURE, PRESENT, or PAST, with Modal verbs? Importantly, we can already tell that our Modals are going to be green: they modify head verbs. See our color guide.
PAST Modal forms can alter the language register. The register concerns the styles we use when we speak or write on various occasions. In other words, it has a lot to do with being polite. In our journey, we may think about language in a relaxed way, to help us feel good with learning. Writing and reading yet are not the same as communicating with anyone, when we are more distanced towards unfamiliar or formal persons. Still, we can use modal verbs.
CAN is very colloquial in its register for suggestions. It could be rude for a suggestion, when we address someone we do not know. It is not offensive when we simply state on POTENTIAL or provide information.
22. Bald eagles CAN fly above clouds.
We would use the verb can as in example 22, during formal talks. It might be strange to omit the Modal. Why is modal mediation so important in American English? Especially if we want to negotiate or provide guidance, we should not misinterpret Modal verbs for uncertainty or passiveness. We would be in error.
Modal verbs can make us look or sound more polite and sophisticated. They are a matter of good style, tact, and logic. Modal verbs are good in business talks, where they are by no means the same as submissiveness. When we say something would not work for us, we are as assertive as when we say it is not going to work.
22a. Bald eagles fly above clouds.
(We would be likely to say this about or in a specific area where bald eagles live and fly above clouds, to give information.)
23. Modal verbs CAN express varying degrees of potential, probability, contingency, and certainty.
(The guidance applies from wherever we refer, as in example 22).
In American as well as British English, we mind the Negative Interrogative. If we make a request with CAN’T or COULDN’T, we imply we expect consent. (We would not readily assume approval from someone like a never-possibly-happy-person, would we?)
24. COULDN’T I use your car? (I expect you are going to allow it.)
When someone is not a never-possibly-happy-person, we can ask,
24a. COULD I use your car (please)?
Let us expand on our logic. We know we can speak about the PAST, with past Modal forms. We can compare our immersion in Exercises 35 and 36 (Chapter 6.4).
POTENTIALITY ― the PAST time extent
Let us recur to Exercise 51 (Chapter 8.2). We included our information on time in the context. We did not have to say,
“Today, she has been working”.
We could say,
“She has been working”.
We also can express the time scope overtly, as we could above:
The time extent may be tacit. We know where we are in our thoughts about time, when we speak. We can associate this with natural human mapping and gravitation. Thinking about the time frame, Monsieur Sauf could say about Madame Règle (see Grammar in context, Chapter 6.2),
(Tacit time reference: the word „today” does not decide on grammar.)
MAY and CAN have alternates. The alternates are “to be able to” and “to be allowed”. They can give ability or permission more emphasis.
25b. Imagine, this little, Alice was able to read (!)
27. A-li loves books, too. She was allowed to stay up a bit longer, on holidays.
We can think up a general framework to compare form and meaning. Obviously, the picture here is not the only possible picture, and everyone is free to reckon independently. Let us think about MAY and CAN for PROBABILITY.
PROBABILITY ― the PRESENT time extent
PAST Modal forms may change the degree of probability we express. Let us mark this degree for probability in cubes. We can imagine we are mountaineering.
28. Careful with this handle, it MAY break.
29. Careful with this handle, it CAN break.
28a. Careful with this handle, it MIGHT break.
29a. Careful with this handle, it COULD break.
We cannot be “fixed” on word form, to learn. There are multifarious handles in this world. We may need one to break a can of food open, when hiking. A can may be a metal container. We could name the handle in the picture above a quickdraw. Words always can have more than one meaning.
When we can handle our grammar skills, we can be successful with grammar. Grammars are not separate from vocabularies. Dictionaries may differ. When we can handle dictionaries, we are able to compare them and draw own conclusions. We can put those conclusions in our notebooks or thinktionaries.
Let us compare CERTAINTY.
CERTAINTY ― the PRESENT time extent
30. The can WILL / HAS TO / MUST break open.
31. The can SHOULD / OUGHT TO break open.
32. The can NEEDS to break open.
The Modals we can use to express CERTAINTY are going to work the same for CONTINGENCY ― except for WILL, as having to do something does not mean that we become willful or willing. We have a note about us, independence-loving people, up the page. Let us keep on developing our framework.
CONTINGENCY ― the PRESENT time extent
33. You HAVE TO / MUST take care of the handle.
34. You SHOULD / OUGHT TO take care of the handle.
35. You NEED to take care of the handle.
American English has the informal GOTTA (HAVE / HAS GOT TO) to work as HAVE TO. In official contexts, we keep away from informal uses. When we are not so formal and want to talk common sense, we can use both the regular and informal HAVE TO / HAVE GOT TO / GOTTA for CERTAINTY as well as CONTINGENCY.
33a. You GOTTA take care of the handle.
Indisputably, we may think common sense when we are far from high mountain areas, too. Common sense does not mean we should not have any sense of humor.
36. That HAS TO / GOTTA be the handle.
Colloquial language is mostly banned from schools. We may need some acquaintance with it to comprehend everyday speech, however. Informally, the word “stuff” may mean “talk”, “matter”.
37. We HAVE TO / GOTTA learn to handle the Modal stuff.
What strategy can we develop for the Modal PAST time compass? We can use syntactic structures.