Infinitives
An infinitive is a verbal consisting of the word to plus a verb (in its simplest "stem" form) and functioning as a noun, adjective, or adverb. The term verbal indicates that an infinitive, like the other two kinds of verbals, is based on a verb and therefore expresses action or a state of being. However, the infinitive may function as a subject, direct object, subject complement, adjective, or adverb in a sentence. Although an infinitive is easy to locate because of the to + verb form, deciding what function it has in a sentence can sometimes be confusing.
* To wait seemed foolish when decisive action was required. (subject)
* Everyone wanted to go. (direct object)
* His ambition is to fly. (subject complement)
* He lacked the strength to resist. (adjective)
* We must study to learn. (adverb)
Be sure not to confuse an infinitive—a verbal consisting of to plus a verb—with a prepositional phrase beginning with to, which consists of to plus a noun or pronoun and any modifiers.
* Infinitives: to fly, to draw, to become, to enter, to stand, to catch, to belong
* Prepositional Phrases: to him, to the committee, to my house, to the mountains, to us, to this address
An Infinitive Phrase is a group of words consisting of an infinitive and the modifier(s) and/or (pro)noun(s) or noun phrase(s) that function as the actor(s), direct object(s), indirect object(s), or complement(s) of the action or state expressed in the infinitive, such as:
We intended to leave early.
The infinitive phrase functions as the direct object of the verb intended.
to leave (infinitive)
early (adverb)
I have a paper to write before class.
The infinitive phrase functions as an adjective modifying paper.
to write (infinitive)
before class (prepositional phrase as adverb)
Phil agreed to give me a ride.
The infinitive phrase functions as the direct object of the verb agreed.
to give (infinitive)
me (indirect object of action expressed in infinitive)
a ride (direct object of action expressed in infinitive)
They asked me to bring some food.
The infinitive phrase functions as the direct object of the verb asked.
me (actor or "subject" of infinitive phrase)
to bring (infinitive)
some food (direct object of action expressed in infinitive)
Everyone wanted Carol to be the captain of the team.
The infinitive phrase functions as the direct object of the verb wanted.
Carol (actor or "subject" of infinitive phrase)
to be (infinitive)
the captain (subject complement for Carol, via state of being expressed in infinitive)
of the team (prepositional phrase as adjective)
Actors: In these last two examples the actor of the infinitive phrase could be roughly characterized as the "subject" of the action or state expressed in the infinitive. It is somewhat misleading to use the word subject, however, since an infinitive phrase is not a full clause with a subject and a finite verb. Also notice that when it is a pronoun, the actor appears in the objective case (me, not I, in the fourth example). Certain verbs, when they take an infinitive direct object, require an actor for the infinitive phrase; others can't have an actor.
Punctuation: If the infinitive is used as an adverb and is the beginning phrase in a sentence, it should be set off with a comma; otherwise, no punctuation is needed for an infinitive phrase.
* To buy a basket of flowers, John had to spend his last dollar.
* To improve your writing, you must consider your purpose and audience.
Points to remember
1. An infinitive is a verbal consisting of the word to plus a verb; it may be used as a noun, adjective, or adverb.
2. An infinitive phrase consists of an infinitive plus modifier(s), object(s), complement(s), and/or actor(s).
3. An infinitive phrase requires a comma only if it is used as an adverb at the beginning of a sentence.
Split infinitives
Split infinitives occur when additional words are included between to and the verb in an infinitive. Many readers find a single adverb splitting the infinitive to be acceptable, but this practice should be avoided in formal writing.
Examples:
* I like to on a nice day walk in the woods. * (unacceptable)
On a nice day, I like to walk in the woods. (revised)
* I needed to quickly gather my personal possessions. (acceptable in informal contexts)
I needed to gather my personal possessions quickly. (revised for formal contexts)
* To wait seemed foolish when decisive action was required. (subject)
* Everyone wanted to go. (direct object)
* His ambition is to fly. (subject complement)
* He lacked the strength to resist. (adjective)
* We must study to learn. (adverb)
Be sure not to confuse an infinitive—a verbal consisting of to plus a verb—with a prepositional phrase beginning with to, which consists of to plus a noun or pronoun and any modifiers.
* Infinitives: to fly, to draw, to become, to enter, to stand, to catch, to belong
* Prepositional Phrases: to him, to the committee, to my house, to the mountains, to us, to this address
An Infinitive Phrase is a group of words consisting of an infinitive and the modifier(s) and/or (pro)noun(s) or noun phrase(s) that function as the actor(s), direct object(s), indirect object(s), or complement(s) of the action or state expressed in the infinitive, such as:
We intended to leave early.
The infinitive phrase functions as the direct object of the verb intended.
to leave (infinitive)
early (adverb)
I have a paper to write before class.
The infinitive phrase functions as an adjective modifying paper.
to write (infinitive)
before class (prepositional phrase as adverb)
Phil agreed to give me a ride.
The infinitive phrase functions as the direct object of the verb agreed.
to give (infinitive)
me (indirect object of action expressed in infinitive)
a ride (direct object of action expressed in infinitive)
They asked me to bring some food.
The infinitive phrase functions as the direct object of the verb asked.
me (actor or "subject" of infinitive phrase)
to bring (infinitive)
some food (direct object of action expressed in infinitive)
Everyone wanted Carol to be the captain of the team.
The infinitive phrase functions as the direct object of the verb wanted.
Carol (actor or "subject" of infinitive phrase)
to be (infinitive)
the captain (subject complement for Carol, via state of being expressed in infinitive)
of the team (prepositional phrase as adjective)
Actors: In these last two examples the actor of the infinitive phrase could be roughly characterized as the "subject" of the action or state expressed in the infinitive. It is somewhat misleading to use the word subject, however, since an infinitive phrase is not a full clause with a subject and a finite verb. Also notice that when it is a pronoun, the actor appears in the objective case (me, not I, in the fourth example). Certain verbs, when they take an infinitive direct object, require an actor for the infinitive phrase; others can't have an actor.
Punctuation: If the infinitive is used as an adverb and is the beginning phrase in a sentence, it should be set off with a comma; otherwise, no punctuation is needed for an infinitive phrase.
* To buy a basket of flowers, John had to spend his last dollar.
* To improve your writing, you must consider your purpose and audience.
Points to remember
1. An infinitive is a verbal consisting of the word to plus a verb; it may be used as a noun, adjective, or adverb.
2. An infinitive phrase consists of an infinitive plus modifier(s), object(s), complement(s), and/or actor(s).
3. An infinitive phrase requires a comma only if it is used as an adverb at the beginning of a sentence.
Split infinitives
Split infinitives occur when additional words are included between to and the verb in an infinitive. Many readers find a single adverb splitting the infinitive to be acceptable, but this practice should be avoided in formal writing.
Examples:
* I like to on a nice day walk in the woods. * (unacceptable)
On a nice day, I like to walk in the woods. (revised)
* I needed to quickly gather my personal possessions. (acceptable in informal contexts)
I needed to gather my personal possessions quickly. (revised for formal contexts)
Participles
A participle is a verbal that is used as an adjective and most often ends in -ing or -ed. The term verbal indicates that a participle, like the other two kinds of verbals, is based on a verb and therefore expresses action or a state of being. However, since they function as adjectives, participles modify nouns or pronouns. There are two types of participles: present participles and past participles. Present participles end in -ing. Past participles end in -ed, -en, -d, -t, or -n, as in the words asked, eaten, saved, dealt, and seen.
* The crying baby had a wet diaper.
* Shaken, he walked away from the wrecked car.
* The burning log fell off the fire.
* Smiling, she hugged the panting dog.
A participial phrase is a group of words consisting of a participle and the modifier(s) and/or (pro)noun(s) or noun phrase(s) that function as the direct object(s), indirect object(s), or complement(s) of the action or state expressed in the participle, such as:
Removing his coat, Jack rushed to the river.
The participial phrase functions as an adjective modifying Jack.
Removing (participle)
his coat (direct object of action expressed in participle)
Delores noticed her cousin walking along the shoreline.
The participial phrase functions as an adjective modifying cousin.
walking (participle)
along the shoreline (prepositional phrase as adverb)
Children introduced to music early develop strong intellectual skills.
The participial phrase functions as an adjective modifying children.
introduced (to) (participle)
music (direct object of action expressed in participle)
early (adverb)
Having been a gymnast, Lynn knew the importance of exercise.
The participial phrase functions as an adjective modifying Lynn.
Having been (participle)
a gymnast (subject complement for Lynn, via state of being expressed in participle)
Placement: In order to prevent confusion, a participial phrase must be placed as close to the noun it modifies as possible, and the noun must be clearly stated.
* Carrying a heavy pile of books, his foot caught on a step. *
* Carrying a heavy pile of books, he caught his foot on a step.
In the first sentence there is no clear indication of who or what is performing the action expressed in the participle carrying. Certainly foot can't be logically understood to function in this way. This situation is an example of a dangling modifier error since the modifier (the participial phrase) is not modifying any specific noun in the sentence and is thus left "dangling." Since a person must be doing the carrying for the sentence to make sense, a noun or pronoun that refers to a person must be in the place immediately after the participial phrase, as in the second sentence.
Punctuation: When a participial phrase begins a sentence, a comma should be placed after the phrase.
* Arriving at the store, I found that it was closed.
* Washing and polishing the car, Frank developed sore muscles.
If the participle or participial phrase comes in the middle of a sentence, it should be set off with commas only if the information is not essential to the meaning of the sentence.
* Sid, watching an old movie, drifted in and out of sleep.
* The church, destroyed by a fire, was never rebuilt.
Note that if the participial phrase is essential to the meaning of the sentence, no commas should be used:
* The student earning the highest grade point average will receive a special award.
* The guy wearing the chicken costume is my cousin.
If a participial phrase comes at the end of a sentence, a comma usually precedes the phrase if it modifies an earlier word in the sentence but not if the phrase directly follows the word it modifies.
* The local residents often saw Ken wandering through the streets.
(The phrase modifies Ken, not residents.)
* Tom nervously watched the woman, alarmed by her silence.
(The phrase modifies Tom, not woman.)
Points to remember
1. A participle is a verbal ending in -ing (present) or -ed, -en, -d, -t, or -n (past) that functions as an adjective, modifying a noun or pronoun.
2. A participial phrase consists of a participle plus modifier(s), object(s), and/or complement(s).
3. Participles and participial phrases must be placed as close to the nouns or pronouns they modify as possible, and those nouns or pronouns must be clearly stated.
4. A participial phrase is set off with commas when it:
* a) comes at the beginning of a sentence
* b) interrupts a sentence as a nonessential element
* c) comes at the end of a sentence and is separated from the word it modifies.
* The crying baby had a wet diaper.
* Shaken, he walked away from the wrecked car.
* The burning log fell off the fire.
* Smiling, she hugged the panting dog.
A participial phrase is a group of words consisting of a participle and the modifier(s) and/or (pro)noun(s) or noun phrase(s) that function as the direct object(s), indirect object(s), or complement(s) of the action or state expressed in the participle, such as:
Removing his coat, Jack rushed to the river.
The participial phrase functions as an adjective modifying Jack.
Removing (participle)
his coat (direct object of action expressed in participle)
Delores noticed her cousin walking along the shoreline.
The participial phrase functions as an adjective modifying cousin.
walking (participle)
along the shoreline (prepositional phrase as adverb)
Children introduced to music early develop strong intellectual skills.
The participial phrase functions as an adjective modifying children.
introduced (to) (participle)
music (direct object of action expressed in participle)
early (adverb)
Having been a gymnast, Lynn knew the importance of exercise.
The participial phrase functions as an adjective modifying Lynn.
Having been (participle)
a gymnast (subject complement for Lynn, via state of being expressed in participle)
Placement: In order to prevent confusion, a participial phrase must be placed as close to the noun it modifies as possible, and the noun must be clearly stated.
* Carrying a heavy pile of books, his foot caught on a step. *
* Carrying a heavy pile of books, he caught his foot on a step.
In the first sentence there is no clear indication of who or what is performing the action expressed in the participle carrying. Certainly foot can't be logically understood to function in this way. This situation is an example of a dangling modifier error since the modifier (the participial phrase) is not modifying any specific noun in the sentence and is thus left "dangling." Since a person must be doing the carrying for the sentence to make sense, a noun or pronoun that refers to a person must be in the place immediately after the participial phrase, as in the second sentence.
Punctuation: When a participial phrase begins a sentence, a comma should be placed after the phrase.
* Arriving at the store, I found that it was closed.
* Washing and polishing the car, Frank developed sore muscles.
If the participle or participial phrase comes in the middle of a sentence, it should be set off with commas only if the information is not essential to the meaning of the sentence.
* Sid, watching an old movie, drifted in and out of sleep.
* The church, destroyed by a fire, was never rebuilt.
Note that if the participial phrase is essential to the meaning of the sentence, no commas should be used:
* The student earning the highest grade point average will receive a special award.
* The guy wearing the chicken costume is my cousin.
If a participial phrase comes at the end of a sentence, a comma usually precedes the phrase if it modifies an earlier word in the sentence but not if the phrase directly follows the word it modifies.
* The local residents often saw Ken wandering through the streets.
(The phrase modifies Ken, not residents.)
* Tom nervously watched the woman, alarmed by her silence.
(The phrase modifies Tom, not woman.)
Points to remember
1. A participle is a verbal ending in -ing (present) or -ed, -en, -d, -t, or -n (past) that functions as an adjective, modifying a noun or pronoun.
2. A participial phrase consists of a participle plus modifier(s), object(s), and/or complement(s).
3. Participles and participial phrases must be placed as close to the nouns or pronouns they modify as possible, and those nouns or pronouns must be clearly stated.
4. A participial phrase is set off with commas when it:
* a) comes at the beginning of a sentence
* b) interrupts a sentence as a nonessential element
* c) comes at the end of a sentence and is separated from the word it modifies.
Question Tag
A question tag or tag question is a grammatical structure in which a declarative statement or an imperative is turned into a question by adding an interrogative fragment (the "tag"). The term "question tag" is generally preferred by British grammarians, while their American counterparts prefer "tag question".
Forms and uses
In most languages, tag questions are more common in colloquial spoken usage than in formal written usage. They can be an indicator of politeness, emphasis, or irony. They may suggest confidence or lack of confidence; they may be confrontational or tentative. In legal settings, tag questions can be found in leading question. Some examples showing the wide variety of structure possible in English are:
* Open the window, will you?
* She doesn't really want those apples, does she?
* You'd better stop now, hadn't you?
* So you thought it would be a good idea to reprogram the computer, did you?
* It's quite an achievement, isn't it, to win a Nobel prize!
* Oh I must, must I?
* I just adore Beethoven, don't you?
* I'm coming with you, all right?
* You've been there, right?
* Easier said than done, eh?
* You went there, no?
Auxiliary
The English tag question is made up of an auxiliary verb and a pronoun. The auxiliary has to agree with the tense, aspect and modality of the verb in the preceding sentence. If the verb is in the perfect tense, for example, the tag question uses has or have; if the verb is in a present progressive form, the tag is formed with am, are, is; if the verb is in a tense which does not normally use an auxiliary, like the present simple, the auxiliary is taken from the emphatic do form; and if the sentence has a modal auxiliary, this is echoed in the tag:
* He's read this book, hasn't he?
* He read this book, didn't he?
* He's reading this book, isn't he?
* He reads a lot of books, doesn't he?
* He'll read this book, won't he?
* He should read this book, shouldn't he?
* He can read this book, can't he?
A special case occurs when the main verb is to be in a simple tense. Here the tag question repeats the main verb, not an auxiliary:
* This is a book, isn't it?
(Not doesn't it?, as the normal rules for present simple would suggest.)
If the main verb is to have, either solution is possible:
* He has a book, hasn't he?
* He has a book, doesn't he?
Negation
English tag questions may contain a negation, but need not. When there is no special emphasis, the rule of thumb often applies that a positive sentence has a negative tag and vice versa:
* She is French, isn't she?
* She's not French, is she?
These are sometimes called "balanced tag questions". However, it has been estimated that in normal conversation, as many as 40%-50%[2] of tags break this rule. "Unbalanced tag questions" (positive to positive or negative to negative) may be used for ironic or confrontational effects:
* Do listen, will you?
* Oh, I'm lazy, am I?
* Jack: I refuse to spend Sunday at your mother's house! Jill: Oh you do, do you? We'll see about that!
* Jack: I just won't go back! Jill: Oh you won't, won't you?
Patterns of negation can show regional variations. In North East Scotland, for example, positive to positive is used when no special effect is desired:
* This pizza's fine, is it? (standard English: This pizza's delicious, isn't it?)
Note the following variations in the negation when the auxiliary is the I form of the copula:
* England (and America, Australia, etc.): Clever, aren't I?
* Scotland/Northern Ireland: Clever, amn't I?
* nonstandard dialects: Clever, ain't I?
Intonation
English tag questions can have a rising or a falling intonation pattern. This is contrasted with Polish, French or German, for example, where all tags rise. As a rule, the English rising pattern is used when soliciting information or motivating an action, that is, when some sort of response is required. Since normal English yes/no questions have rising patterns (e.g. Are you coming?), these tags make a grammatical statement into a real question:
* You're coming, aren't you?
* Do listen, will you?
* Let's have a beer, shall we?
The falling pattern is used to underline a statement. The statement itself ends with a falling pattern, and the tag sounds like an echo, strengthening the pattern. Most English tag questions have this falling pattern.
* He doesn't know what he's doing, does he?
* This is really boring, isn't it?
Sometimes the rising tag goes with the positive to positive pattern to create a confrontational effect:
* He was the best in the class, was he? (rising: the speaker is challenging this thesis, or perhaps expressing surprised interest)
* He was the best in the class, wasn't he? (falling: the speaker holds this opinion)
* Be careful, will you? (rising: expresses irritation)
* Take care, won't you? (falling: expresses concern)
Sometimes the same words may have different patterns depending on the situation or implication.
* You don't remember my name, do you? (rising: expresses surprise)
* You don't remember my name, do you? (falling: expresses amusement or resignation)
* Your name's Mary, isn't it? (rising: expresses uncertainty)
* Your name's Mary, isn't it? (falling: expresses confidence)
It is interesting that as an all-purpose tag the London set-phrase innit (for "isn't it") is only used with falling patterns:
* He doesn't know what he's doing, innit?
* He was the best in the class, innit?
On the other hand, the adverbial tag questions (alright? OK? etc.) are almost always found with rising patterns. An occasional exception is surely.
Emphasis
English tag questions are normally stressed on the verb, but the stress is on the pronoun if there is a change of person.
* I don't like peas, do you?
* I like peas, don't you?
This is often a rising tag (especially when the tag contains no negation), or the intonation pattern may be the typically English fall-rise
Forms and uses
In most languages, tag questions are more common in colloquial spoken usage than in formal written usage. They can be an indicator of politeness, emphasis, or irony. They may suggest confidence or lack of confidence; they may be confrontational or tentative. In legal settings, tag questions can be found in leading question. Some examples showing the wide variety of structure possible in English are:
* Open the window, will you?
* She doesn't really want those apples, does she?
* You'd better stop now, hadn't you?
* So you thought it would be a good idea to reprogram the computer, did you?
* It's quite an achievement, isn't it, to win a Nobel prize!
* Oh I must, must I?
* I just adore Beethoven, don't you?
* I'm coming with you, all right?
* You've been there, right?
* Easier said than done, eh?
* You went there, no?
Auxiliary
The English tag question is made up of an auxiliary verb and a pronoun. The auxiliary has to agree with the tense, aspect and modality of the verb in the preceding sentence. If the verb is in the perfect tense, for example, the tag question uses has or have; if the verb is in a present progressive form, the tag is formed with am, are, is; if the verb is in a tense which does not normally use an auxiliary, like the present simple, the auxiliary is taken from the emphatic do form; and if the sentence has a modal auxiliary, this is echoed in the tag:
* He's read this book, hasn't he?
* He read this book, didn't he?
* He's reading this book, isn't he?
* He reads a lot of books, doesn't he?
* He'll read this book, won't he?
* He should read this book, shouldn't he?
* He can read this book, can't he?
A special case occurs when the main verb is to be in a simple tense. Here the tag question repeats the main verb, not an auxiliary:
* This is a book, isn't it?
(Not doesn't it?, as the normal rules for present simple would suggest.)
If the main verb is to have, either solution is possible:
* He has a book, hasn't he?
* He has a book, doesn't he?
Negation
English tag questions may contain a negation, but need not. When there is no special emphasis, the rule of thumb often applies that a positive sentence has a negative tag and vice versa:
* She is French, isn't she?
* She's not French, is she?
These are sometimes called "balanced tag questions". However, it has been estimated that in normal conversation, as many as 40%-50%[2] of tags break this rule. "Unbalanced tag questions" (positive to positive or negative to negative) may be used for ironic or confrontational effects:
* Do listen, will you?
* Oh, I'm lazy, am I?
* Jack: I refuse to spend Sunday at your mother's house! Jill: Oh you do, do you? We'll see about that!
* Jack: I just won't go back! Jill: Oh you won't, won't you?
Patterns of negation can show regional variations. In North East Scotland, for example, positive to positive is used when no special effect is desired:
* This pizza's fine, is it? (standard English: This pizza's delicious, isn't it?)
Note the following variations in the negation when the auxiliary is the I form of the copula:
* England (and America, Australia, etc.): Clever, aren't I?
* Scotland/Northern Ireland: Clever, amn't I?
* nonstandard dialects: Clever, ain't I?
Intonation
English tag questions can have a rising or a falling intonation pattern. This is contrasted with Polish, French or German, for example, where all tags rise. As a rule, the English rising pattern is used when soliciting information or motivating an action, that is, when some sort of response is required. Since normal English yes/no questions have rising patterns (e.g. Are you coming?), these tags make a grammatical statement into a real question:
* You're coming, aren't you?
* Do listen, will you?
* Let's have a beer, shall we?
The falling pattern is used to underline a statement. The statement itself ends with a falling pattern, and the tag sounds like an echo, strengthening the pattern. Most English tag questions have this falling pattern.
* He doesn't know what he's doing, does he?
* This is really boring, isn't it?
Sometimes the rising tag goes with the positive to positive pattern to create a confrontational effect:
* He was the best in the class, was he? (rising: the speaker is challenging this thesis, or perhaps expressing surprised interest)
* He was the best in the class, wasn't he? (falling: the speaker holds this opinion)
* Be careful, will you? (rising: expresses irritation)
* Take care, won't you? (falling: expresses concern)
Sometimes the same words may have different patterns depending on the situation or implication.
* You don't remember my name, do you? (rising: expresses surprise)
* You don't remember my name, do you? (falling: expresses amusement or resignation)
* Your name's Mary, isn't it? (rising: expresses uncertainty)
* Your name's Mary, isn't it? (falling: expresses confidence)
It is interesting that as an all-purpose tag the London set-phrase innit (for "isn't it") is only used with falling patterns:
* He doesn't know what he's doing, innit?
* He was the best in the class, innit?
On the other hand, the adverbial tag questions (alright? OK? etc.) are almost always found with rising patterns. An occasional exception is surely.
Emphasis
English tag questions are normally stressed on the verb, but the stress is on the pronoun if there is a change of person.
* I don't like peas, do you?
* I like peas, don't you?
This is often a rising tag (especially when the tag contains no negation), or the intonation pattern may be the typically English fall-rise
Modal Verbs
In the English language, a modal verb is an auxiliary verb that can be used to change the grammatical mood of a sentence. The key way to identify a modal verb is by its defectiveness (they have neither participles nor infinitives).
The modal verbs in English are as follows, paired as present and preterite forms:
* shall and should
* will and would
* may and might
* can and could
* mote (Archaic) and must
The following are not modal verbs but may be used for a similar purpose:
* ought to and had better
* used to
* dare and need
* do
* going to
* have to
Although historically referring to past time, the preterite forms have come to be used in many cases with no such meaning.
Syntax
If a verb is preceded by multiple auxiliary verbs including a modal, as in "it could have been eaten," the modal will always appear before the other auxiliary verbs. A verb or auxiliary verb following a modal always appears in its basic form (for example, "could have gone" instead of "could had gone").
Past time use of preterite forms
Preterite forms may be used when referring to situations seen from the perspective of an earlier time. For example, would is originally the past tense of will, and it can still be used in that sense. The statement "People think that we will all be driving hovercars by the year 2000", in the context of the 1960s, can be represented in the present by replacing the verbs in italics by the appropriate preterite forms: "In the 1960s, people thought we would all be driving hovercars by the year 2000." Likewise, "I can do that" may become "I could do that when I was younger, but not anymore."
Conditionals
The preterite forms can also be used in the apodosis in the conditional mood, such as in counterfactual conditionals: "If they had wanted to do it, they would have done it by now." "If you bought a bus pass, you could catch as many buses as you liked without worrying about the cost of the fares." "If he were more polite, he might be better liked."
There is not always an explicit protasis ("if" clause) in this use: "Someone who likes red and hates yellow would probably prefer strawberries to bananas" means the same as "If someone who liked red and hated yellow were offered a choice of fruit, he or she would probably prefer strawberries to bananas." "I could help you with your work" gives a more tentative sense of ability to help than, say, "I can help you with your work" would. The implied protasis could, depending on the context, be along the lines of "If I wanted to".
Shall and will
Shall is used in many of the same senses as will, though not all dialects use shall productively, and those that use both shall and will generally draw a distinction (though different dialects tend to draw different distinctions). In standard, perhaps old-fashioned English, shall in the first person, singular or plural, indicates mere futurity, but in other persons shows an order, command or prophecy: "Cinderella, you shall go to the ball!" It is, therefore, impossible to make shall questions in these persons. Shall we? makes sense, shall you? does not.
Shall derives from a main verb meaning to owe, and in dialects that use both shall and will, it is often used in instances where an obligation, rather than an intention, is expressed.
Shall is also used in legal and engineering language to write firm laws and specifications as in these examples: "Those convicted of violating this law shall be imprisoned for a term of not less than three years nor more than seven years," and "The electronics assembly shall be able to operate within its specifications over a temperature range of 0 degrees Celsius to 70 degrees Celsius."
Should
Should is commonly used, even in dialects where shall is not. The negation is "should not" (or the contraction "shouldn't").
Should can describe an ideal behaviour or occurrence and imparts a normative meaning to the sentence; for example, "You should never lie" means roughly, "If you always behaved perfectly, you would never lie"; and "If this works, you should not feel a thing" means roughly, "I hope this will work. If it does, you will not feel a thing." In dialects that use shall commonly, however, this restriction does not apply; for example, a speaker of such a dialect might say, "If I failed that test, I think I should cry," meaning the same thing as, "If I failed that test, I think I would cry."
In some dialects, it is common to form the subjunctive mood by using should: "It is important that the law should be passed" (where other dialects would say, "It is important that the law be passed") or "If it should happen, we are prepared for it" (or "Should it happen, we are prepared for it"; where early Modern English would say, "If it happen, we are prepared for it," and many dialects of today would say, "If it happens, we are prepared for it").
Would
The contracted form of would is "'d". The negation is either "would not" or "wouldn't".
Would can be used in some forms that are viewed as more formal or polite. For example, "I would like a glass of water" compared with "I want a glass of water"; and "Would you get me a glass of water?" compared with the bare "Get me a glass of water."
"Would" can also be used for the imperfect tense. In the sentence "Back then, I would eat early and would walk to school...." "would" signifies not the conditional mood, but rather, repeated past actions of imperfect tense in English, and one must use care when translating to other languages.
May and might
May and might do not have common negative contractions (equivalents to shan't, won't, can't, couldn't etc.), although mightn't can occur in asking questions. ("Mightn't I come in if I took my muddy boots off?" as a reply to "Don't come in here! You'll get the floor dirty!")
Both forms can be used to express a present time possibility or uncertainty ("That may be."). Might and could can also be used in this sense with no past time meaning. Might and may would carry the same meaning in "John is not in the office today, and he could be sick."
May is also used to express irrelevance in spite of certain or likely truth: "He may be taller than I am, but he is certainly not stronger" may mean roughly, "While it is true that he is taller than I am, that does not make a difference, as he is certainly not stronger." (However, it may also mean, "I am not sure whether he is taller than I am, but I am sure that he is not stronger.") This is the meaning in the phrase "Be that as it may." Might can be used in this sense as well.
Might can be used in the first person to express that future actions are being considered. "I might go to the mall later" means that the speaker is thinking about going to the mall.
May or might can be used in a question to ask for permission. One who is saying "May I use your phone?” is asking for permission to use the phone of the person being spoken to. 'Can' or 'could' can be used instead, although formal American English prefers 'may'. In both cases the preterite form is viewed as more hesitant or polite.
Can and could
The negation of can is the single word "cannot", occasionally written as two words "can not" or the contraction "can't". The negation of could is "could not", or "couldn't".
Can is used to express ability. "I can speak English" means "I am able to speak English", or "I know how to speak English".
It is also used to express that some state of affairs is possible, without referring to the ability of a person to do something: "There can be a very strong rivalry between siblings" can have the same meaning as "There is sometimes a very strong rivalry between siblings".
Cannot and can't can be used to express beliefs about situations: "He cannot have left already; why would he want to get there so early?" expresses with less certainty the same proposition as "He has not left already" does.
Both can and could can be used to make requests: "Can you pass me the cheese?” means "Please pass me the cheese". Could can be used in the same way, and might be considered more polite.
Note that the form could is either preterite (past = was able to) or conditional (would be able to)
Must
Must has no corresponding preterite form. The negation is "must not" or "mustn't". An archaic variant is the word mote, as used in the expression "so mote it be".
Must and have to are used to express that something is obligatory ("He must leave"). It can be used to express a prohibition such as "You must not smoke in here", or a resolution such as "I mustn't make that mistake again".
There is a distinction between must and have to in the negative forms. In the sentence "You must not go", it is being expressed that it is obligatory for the person being spoken to not to go; whereas in the sentence "You do not have to go" it is being expressed that it is not obligatory for the person to go.
Have to can be used for an ongoing obligation, such as "he has to be careful".
Must and have to are used to express beliefs (the epistemic rather than deontic use), such as "It must be here somewhere" or "It has to be here somewhere", with the same meaning as "I believe that it very likely that it is here somewhere."
The modal verbs in English are as follows, paired as present and preterite forms:
* shall and should
* will and would
* may and might
* can and could
* mote (Archaic) and must
The following are not modal verbs but may be used for a similar purpose:
* ought to and had better
* used to
* dare and need
* do
* going to
* have to
Although historically referring to past time, the preterite forms have come to be used in many cases with no such meaning.
Syntax
If a verb is preceded by multiple auxiliary verbs including a modal, as in "it could have been eaten," the modal will always appear before the other auxiliary verbs. A verb or auxiliary verb following a modal always appears in its basic form (for example, "could have gone" instead of "could had gone").
Past time use of preterite forms
Preterite forms may be used when referring to situations seen from the perspective of an earlier time. For example, would is originally the past tense of will, and it can still be used in that sense. The statement "People think that we will all be driving hovercars by the year 2000", in the context of the 1960s, can be represented in the present by replacing the verbs in italics by the appropriate preterite forms: "In the 1960s, people thought we would all be driving hovercars by the year 2000." Likewise, "I can do that" may become "I could do that when I was younger, but not anymore."
Conditionals
The preterite forms can also be used in the apodosis in the conditional mood, such as in counterfactual conditionals: "If they had wanted to do it, they would have done it by now." "If you bought a bus pass, you could catch as many buses as you liked without worrying about the cost of the fares." "If he were more polite, he might be better liked."
There is not always an explicit protasis ("if" clause) in this use: "Someone who likes red and hates yellow would probably prefer strawberries to bananas" means the same as "If someone who liked red and hated yellow were offered a choice of fruit, he or she would probably prefer strawberries to bananas." "I could help you with your work" gives a more tentative sense of ability to help than, say, "I can help you with your work" would. The implied protasis could, depending on the context, be along the lines of "If I wanted to".
Shall and will
Shall is used in many of the same senses as will, though not all dialects use shall productively, and those that use both shall and will generally draw a distinction (though different dialects tend to draw different distinctions). In standard, perhaps old-fashioned English, shall in the first person, singular or plural, indicates mere futurity, but in other persons shows an order, command or prophecy: "Cinderella, you shall go to the ball!" It is, therefore, impossible to make shall questions in these persons. Shall we? makes sense, shall you? does not.
Shall derives from a main verb meaning to owe, and in dialects that use both shall and will, it is often used in instances where an obligation, rather than an intention, is expressed.
Shall is also used in legal and engineering language to write firm laws and specifications as in these examples: "Those convicted of violating this law shall be imprisoned for a term of not less than three years nor more than seven years," and "The electronics assembly shall be able to operate within its specifications over a temperature range of 0 degrees Celsius to 70 degrees Celsius."
Should
Should is commonly used, even in dialects where shall is not. The negation is "should not" (or the contraction "shouldn't").
Should can describe an ideal behaviour or occurrence and imparts a normative meaning to the sentence; for example, "You should never lie" means roughly, "If you always behaved perfectly, you would never lie"; and "If this works, you should not feel a thing" means roughly, "I hope this will work. If it does, you will not feel a thing." In dialects that use shall commonly, however, this restriction does not apply; for example, a speaker of such a dialect might say, "If I failed that test, I think I should cry," meaning the same thing as, "If I failed that test, I think I would cry."
In some dialects, it is common to form the subjunctive mood by using should: "It is important that the law should be passed" (where other dialects would say, "It is important that the law be passed") or "If it should happen, we are prepared for it" (or "Should it happen, we are prepared for it"; where early Modern English would say, "If it happen, we are prepared for it," and many dialects of today would say, "If it happens, we are prepared for it").
Would
The contracted form of would is "'d". The negation is either "would not" or "wouldn't".
Would can be used in some forms that are viewed as more formal or polite. For example, "I would like a glass of water" compared with "I want a glass of water"; and "Would you get me a glass of water?" compared with the bare "Get me a glass of water."
"Would" can also be used for the imperfect tense. In the sentence "Back then, I would eat early and would walk to school...." "would" signifies not the conditional mood, but rather, repeated past actions of imperfect tense in English, and one must use care when translating to other languages.
May and might
May and might do not have common negative contractions (equivalents to shan't, won't, can't, couldn't etc.), although mightn't can occur in asking questions. ("Mightn't I come in if I took my muddy boots off?" as a reply to "Don't come in here! You'll get the floor dirty!")
Both forms can be used to express a present time possibility or uncertainty ("That may be."). Might and could can also be used in this sense with no past time meaning. Might and may would carry the same meaning in "John is not in the office today, and he could be sick."
May is also used to express irrelevance in spite of certain or likely truth: "He may be taller than I am, but he is certainly not stronger" may mean roughly, "While it is true that he is taller than I am, that does not make a difference, as he is certainly not stronger." (However, it may also mean, "I am not sure whether he is taller than I am, but I am sure that he is not stronger.") This is the meaning in the phrase "Be that as it may." Might can be used in this sense as well.
Might can be used in the first person to express that future actions are being considered. "I might go to the mall later" means that the speaker is thinking about going to the mall.
May or might can be used in a question to ask for permission. One who is saying "May I use your phone?” is asking for permission to use the phone of the person being spoken to. 'Can' or 'could' can be used instead, although formal American English prefers 'may'. In both cases the preterite form is viewed as more hesitant or polite.
Can and could
The negation of can is the single word "cannot", occasionally written as two words "can not" or the contraction "can't". The negation of could is "could not", or "couldn't".
Can is used to express ability. "I can speak English" means "I am able to speak English", or "I know how to speak English".
It is also used to express that some state of affairs is possible, without referring to the ability of a person to do something: "There can be a very strong rivalry between siblings" can have the same meaning as "There is sometimes a very strong rivalry between siblings".
Cannot and can't can be used to express beliefs about situations: "He cannot have left already; why would he want to get there so early?" expresses with less certainty the same proposition as "He has not left already" does.
Both can and could can be used to make requests: "Can you pass me the cheese?” means "Please pass me the cheese". Could can be used in the same way, and might be considered more polite.
Note that the form could is either preterite (past = was able to) or conditional (would be able to)
Must
Must has no corresponding preterite form. The negation is "must not" or "mustn't". An archaic variant is the word mote, as used in the expression "so mote it be".
Must and have to are used to express that something is obligatory ("He must leave"). It can be used to express a prohibition such as "You must not smoke in here", or a resolution such as "I mustn't make that mistake again".
There is a distinction between must and have to in the negative forms. In the sentence "You must not go", it is being expressed that it is obligatory for the person being spoken to not to go; whereas in the sentence "You do not have to go" it is being expressed that it is not obligatory for the person to go.
Have to can be used for an ongoing obligation, such as "he has to be careful".
Must and have to are used to express beliefs (the epistemic rather than deontic use), such as "It must be here somewhere" or "It has to be here somewhere", with the same meaning as "I believe that it very likely that it is here somewhere."
Modal Verbs Part 2
Words with a similar function to the modal verbs
Have to
Have to is used in a similar way to must, as discussed above. Except where Have to is used more with an outside obligation such as You have to wear a seatbelt when driving and must is used more commonly with personal obligations I must go to the dentist.
Ought to and had better
Ought to and had better are used to express an ideal behavior or occurrence or suggested obligation, in a similar way to should. The negations are, respectively, ought not to (or rarely, oughtn't to) and had better not. The "had" in "had better" can be contracted, such as "You'd better shut up." In informal American usage, the had in had better is sometimes omitted.
Used to
Used to is used to express past states that were habitual but which are no longer. For example, "I used to go to college" suggests that the speaker no longer goes to college. Negative constructions exist in expressions such as "She used to not like me", or if the speaker is trying to avoid the split infinitive, "She used not to like me".
In some non-standard dialects, used to can follow did not (or didn't), as in "She didn't use to like me".
Dare and need
Dare and need are not commonly used as auxiliaries nowadays, but formerly they both were. Dare is rare with the exception of "How dare you!". "He dare not do it" is equivalent to "He does not dare to do it", while "It need not happen today" is equivalent to today's "It does not need to happen today" or "It might not happen today." However, in the sentence "I need to lose weight," need is not being used as an auxiliary, as takes the infinitive "to lose" as the head of the verb phrase rather than the bare infinitive "lose" that occurs in a phrase like "I can lose weight".
Do
As an auxiliary, do is essentially a "dummy"; that is, it does not generally affect the meaning. It is used to form questions and negations when no other auxiliary is present: "I do not (don't) want to do it." This particular use of do, known as do-support, is attested from around 1400.
It is also sometimes used for emphasis: "I do understand your concern, but I do not think that will happen." Also, do sometimes acts as a pro-verb: "I enjoy it, I really do [enjoy it], but I am not good at it." (Other auxiliaries do this as well: "I can do it, I really can [do it], it just takes me longer"; but it bears particular note that in the case of do, it is often used as a pro-verb when it would be absent if the verb were present.) Because it does not affect the meaning of its verb, not all grammarians acknowledge do as a modal auxiliary. In a sense, it indicates a lack of modal auxiliary. (Do is also different in that it has a distinct third-person singular form, does, and in that its past tense, did, is used exactly as a past tense, not as a more general remote form).
Double modal
In standard English usage, it is grammatically incorrect to use more than one modal verb consecutively, although modals can be used together with modal-like constructions. Thus, 'might have to' is acceptable, but 'might must' is not, even though 'must' and 'have to' can normally be used interchangeably. A greater variety of double modals appears colloquially in some regional or archaic dialects. In Southern American English, for example, phrases such as might could or ought to should are sometimes used in conversation.[4][5] The double modal may sometimes be redundant, as in "I ought to should do something about it", where ought to and should are synonymous and either one could be removed from the sentence. In other double modals, the two modal verbs convey different meanings, such as "I might could do something about it tomorrow", where might indicates the possibility of doing something and could indicates the ability to do it.
Double modals also occur in the closely related Germanic language Scots.
An example of the double modal used to could can be heard in country singer Bill Carlisle's 1951 song "Too Old to Cut the Mustard":
I used to could jump just like a deer,
But now I need a new landing gear.
I used to could jump a picket fence,
But now I'm lucky if I jump an inch.[6]
These kind of double modal phrases are generally not regarded as correct grammar, although other double modals may be used instead. "I might could do something about it" is more often expressed as "I might be able to do something about it", which is considered more grammatical. Similarly used to could is usually expressed as used to be able to. Double modals can also be avoided by replacing one of the modal verbs with an appropriate adverb, such as using probably could or might possibly in place of might could.
No comments:
Post a Comment