# Verbos modales



## Polyta

Hola a todos!

Tengo una duda con respecto al uso de los "verbos modales". Sé que el verbo que le sigue en una oración a este tipo de verbos se debe escribir en infinitivo sin TO, pero mi duda es: si hay más verbos en la oración como por ejemplo:

When you *can´t* get sleep you *should* get some fresh air and try of relax you. You *shouldn´t* drink coffee, but you *should *drink a cup of milk.

Debería poner delante de los verbos "sleep" "try", "relax" la particula TO para indicar los infinitivos; dormir, tratar, relajarte?

Muchas gracias
Polyta


----------



## Don Esteban

When you *can´t* get to sleep you *should* get some fresh air and try to relax. You *shouldn´t* drink coffee, but you *should *drink a cup of milk.

Ahí van mis correcciones.


----------



## Polyta

Por qué no un TO delante de TRY??


----------



## dayanaliz

hola! tal vez esto sirva:

....you *should* get some fresh air and try to relax... donde get.. y try.. son opciones que *debería* realizar el sujeto para poder dormir..la oración es análoga a esta otra:

....you *are* getting some fresh air and trying to relax... donde get y try son verbos que acompañan al modal *should* o al auxiliar *are *los cuales se pueden volver a repetir delante de try o trying.

Espero te pueda ayudar.


----------



## Polyta

Muchas Gracias a Don Esteban y a Dayanaliz!!
Me han ayudado.
Polyta


----------



## Mia M

*Can - VM*
Puedo –Puedes – Puede – Podemos
Presente de indicativo. Posibilidad de hacer ubna cosa, permiso o habilidad
*Could – VM*
Podìa – podìas – podìamos (pasado del indicativo)
Podrìa – pudiera o pudiese (posibilidad)
*May VM*
Puedo - Puedes- Puede (presente del indicativo)
Quizàs – Tal Vez
*Might VM*
Pasado de May , posibilidad màs remota
Podìa podrìa pudiera o pudiese
*Must VM*
Deber: debo, debes, debe Presente – 
Obligaciòn, necesidad , consejo o deducciòn
*Should VM*
Deberìa, debe, debiera, debiese
Obligaciòn, consejo o para dear instrucciònes
*Ought to VM*
Debe, deberìa, debiera o debiese
Obligaciòn y recomendaciòn
*Be Able (Reemplaza a CAN)*
en los tiempos pasado y futuro pero tambièn puede usarse en presente. Poder, ser capaz de 
*Have to (Reemplaza a MUST)*
en los tiempos pasado y futuro pero tambièn puede usarse en presente. Deber, tener que


----------



## MIAGOU

MIA M
Podés encontrar más ejemplos aquí: shertonenglish


----------



## NewdestinyX

Mia M said:


> *Can - VM*
> Puedo –Puedes – Puede – Podemos
> Presente de indicativo. Posibilidad de hacer ubna cosa, permiso o habilidad
> *Could – VM*
> Podìa – podìas – podìamos (pasado del indicativo)
> Podrìa – pudiera o pudiese (posibilidad)
> *May VM*
> Puedo - Puedes- Puede (presente del indicativo)
> Quizàs – Tal Vez
> *Might VM*
> Pasado de May , posibilidad màs remota
> Podìa podrìa pudiera o pudiese
> *Must VM*
> Deber: debo, debes, debe Presente –
> Obligaciòn, necesidad , consejo o deducciòn
> *Should VM*
> Deberìa, debe, debiera, debiese
> Obligaciòn, consejo o para dear instrucciònes
> *Ought to VM*
> Debe, deberìa, debiera o debiese
> Obligaciòn y recomendaciòn
> *Be Able to (Reemplaza a CAN)*
> en los tiempos pasado y futuro pero tambièn puede usarse en presente. Poder, ser capaz de
> *Have to (Reemplaza a MUST)*
> en los tiempos pasado y futuro pero tambièn puede usarse en presente. Deber, tener que



This is an oversimplification and there are many exceptions. We are discussing these separately in a number of threads right now.


----------



## virgilio

Polyta,
         Los verbos 'modales' ingleses sono:
 can (presente)    could (pasado)
shall (presente)    should (pasado)
will   (presente)    would (pasado)
may  (presente)    might (pasado)
let    (presente)    let     (pasado)
do    (presente)    did     (pasado)*

(* El verbo "do/did" actúa también como verbo normal)

En Estados Unidos el verbo "have" también  se usa de vez en cuando en el senso de "let"

Despues de cada verbo 'modal' hay un infinitivo 'desnudo' (infinitivo sin la preposición "to").

por ejemplo:

Shall I _play_ the piano? Can you _play_ the piano? Let me _try_! If I practise, I will _succeed_.  I would _be_ sad, if you did not _return.
_The people have no bread_.  _Let them _eat_ cake
Verbos modales sottolineati    Infinitivi 'desnudi' _en letre italiche

_Spero que questo ayude

With best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> Polyta,
> Los verbos 'modales' ingleses sono:
> can (presente)    could (pasado)
> shall (presente)    should (pasado)
> will   (presente)    would (pasado)
> may  (presente)    might (pasado)
> let    (presente)    let     (pasado)
> do    (presente)    did     (pasado)*
> por ejemplo:
> Virgilio



;-) _ I should add here that modern grammarians state that the distinctions between present and past in modals is an artificial one. I'm actually surprised you pressed the distinction, Virgilio, given other input you give us here. 

 I doubt anyone could prove 'should' as a 'pasado' in "I should go now"-- or 'could' as a pasado in: "Could I have one please" (person in the room with you). -- or "would as a past" in "Would he mind if I came tomorrow".

Grant


----------



## virgilio

Not pressing any distinctions, NDX, just trying to tell it like it is. What use people make of these tenses is their own affair. Perhaps all those past tenses you mention ("should" "could" "would") are so because the speaker - whether consciously or not - is using or imitating  hypothetical conditional sentences with  suppressed protases.
e.g.
"I should go now, (if I were sensible)"
"Could I have one please, (if I asked very nicely)"
The last one you have done for me:
"Would he mind (if I came tomorrow).

Just a guess but either way it doesn't alter the tenses, surely.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> Not pressing any distinctions, NDX, just trying to tell it like it is. What use people make of these tenses is their own affair. Perhaps all those past tenses you mention ("should" "could" "would") are so because the speaker - whether consciously or not - is using or imitating  hypothetical conditional sentences with  suppressed protases.
> e.g.
> "I should go now, (if I were sensible)"
> "Could I have one please, (if I asked very nicely)"
> The last one you have done for me:
> "Would he mind (if I came tomorrow).
> 
> Just a guess but either way it doesn't alter the tenses, surely.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio



There is no tense to English modals, Virg. ;-) No really. ;-) (At least not the defective ones: should, could) -- can you demonstrate the tense of them with an example or two?


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      Re your statement:"There is no tense to English modals, Virg. ;-) No really. ;-) (At least not the defective ones: should, could) 
It is a bit difficult, isn't it, to prove a negative?  How do you know that these verbs lack tense?

Re:"can you demonstrate the tense of them with an example or two?"

Well, how about something like:
(1) Every morning he would get up at seven and walk down to the village where he would buy a paper. (fairly obvious past tenses, I would have thought. Don't you agree?)
(2) She told that she would telephone me, so soon as her father should arrive.

Incidentally, which 'modals' do you consider to be "defective"? And in what way are they deficient?

Best wishes
Virg.


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> Re your statement:"There is no tense to English modals, Virg. ;-) No really. ;-) (At least not the defective ones: should, could)
> It is a bit difficult, isn't it, to prove a negative? How do you know that these verbs lack tense?
> 
> Re:"can you demonstrate the tense of them with an example or two?"
> 
> Well, how about something like:
> (1) Every morning he would get up at seven and walk down to the village where he would buy a paper. (fairly obvious past tenses, I would have thought. Don't you agree?)
> (2) She told that she would telephone me, so soon as her father should arrive.
> 
> Incidentally, which 'modals' do you consider to be "defective"? And in what way are they deficient?
> 
> Best wishes
> Virg.


 

Would is a simple marker of the english conditional: Every morning he would get up. 
The past reference is would + have+pp.
The classical modals are defective, and have some charateristics, no (s) in third singular, they do not have past participle, or '-ed' regular past, no gerund or -ing in its roots.

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> Polyta,
> Los verbos 'modales' ingleses sono:
> can (presente) could (pasado)
> shall (presente) should (pasado)
> will (presente) would (pasado)
> may (presente) might (pasado)
> let (presente) let (pasado)
> do (presente) did (pasado)*
> 
> (* El verbo "do/did" actúa también como verbo normal)
> 
> En Estados Unidos el verbo "have" también se usa de vez en cuando en el senso de "let"
> 
> Despues de cada verbo 'modal' hay un infinitivo 'desnudo' (infinitivo sin la preposición "to").
> 
> por ejemplo:
> 
> Shall I _play_ the piano? Can you _play_ the piano? Let me _try_! If I practise, I will _succeed_. I would _be_ sad, if you did not _return._
> The people have no bread_. _Let them _eat_ cake
> Verbos modales sottolineati Infinitivi 'desnudi' _en letre italiche_
> 
> Spero que questo ayude
> 
> With best wishes
> Virgilio


 

'Let' and 'do' are not registered as modals in my English grammar books.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> Re your statement:"There is no tense to English modals, Virg. ;-) No really. ;-) (At least not the defective ones: should, could)
> It is a bit difficult, isn't it, to prove a negative?  How do you know that these verbs lack tense?
> 
> Re:"can you demonstrate the tense of them with an example or two?"
> 
> Well, how about something like:
> (1) Every morning he would get up at seven and walk down to the village where he would buy a paper. (fairly obvious past tenses, I would have thought. Don't you agree?)
> (2) She told that she would telephone me, so soon as her father should arrive.
> 
> Incidentally, which 'modals' do you consider to be "defective"? And in what way are they deficient?
> 
> Best wishes
> Virg.



Would in your 1st example is an imperfect past usage that English uses to replace 'used to'. It is a past inflection there but it's the only use of would that is. And the 'should' you mention is only a British usage but is a future inflection -- not a past one.
Defective:
Should and Must cannot transmit into the past without the helper verb 'have'. They are always present or future without have.
"Could" can't transmit into the past with 'have' except for talent and physical ability. For past probability 'could' you need 'could have'
•10 years ago he could play football really well.
Yesterday you could have helped me but you didn't. (Could, alone, would be incorrect there)
--Some English speakers will accept 'could', alone, as an indicator of past probability in reported speech clauses without the 'have'. But in stand alone sentences, no. Could, alone projects forward only.
(All this is in my grammars, American Heritage, etc.)


----------



## virgilio

Ivy29,
Re:" Would is a simple marker of the english conditional: Every morning he would get up."
If you are taking "would" in this context as a conditional, I'm afraid that you have not understood it. It is a past tense, as NewDestinyX has been kind enough to point out.
By the way re your later statement:" 'Let' and 'do' are not registered as modals in my English grammar books."
"let" is a full-time 'modal' and, as I was careful to explain in my earlier post, "do/did" is a part-time member of the group, adopting the functions of the regular 'modals', when English verbs (except "to have" and "to be") are either negative or interrogative:
e.g.
I take sugar in tea.
I do not _take_ sugar in tea.
Do I _take_ sugar in tea?

(In current spoken English even "to have" is more and more negativised and interrogativised by "do/did".)
e.g.
"Do you _have_ a car?"  (instead of ) "Have you a car?"

('modal' underlined, 'naked' infinitive in italics)

If you grammar book does not include "let" as a 'modal', I would write to the authors suggesting the correction.

One more point re:" Would is a simple marker of the english conditional"
I'm not sure what 'marker' means in this context but the English equivalent of the 'conditional' of the Romance languages uses "would" as an aorist tense, its timelessness being very aptly suggested by the fact that it is the past tense of the verb "will", which is associated in the English mind with futurity, and thus a tense which is both future and past, and hence "timeless".
 The same applies, of course, also to "should" for the same reason.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
       Thanks for the reply. RE:"Would in your 1st example is an imperfect past usage that English uses to replace 'used to'"
That's a bit question-begging, isn't it? If you read in a novel "Every morning he would get up at seven ..etc", on what basis do you claim to know that the author - whoever he might be - was really thinking "Every morning he used to get up at seven..etc" but decided to 'replace' "used to" with "would"?
I agree that the "used to" version gets pretty close to the connotations of "would" in this instance but let's leave the author to choose his own words, please!

Furthermore re:"the 'should' you mention is only a British usage but is a future inflection -- not a past one"

I'm afraid I must disagree. It is an example, of course, of Indirect Speech and the author (given the secondary or 'historic' tense-sequence dictated by the tense of the main verb "told") naturally uses the past tense of the verb of the original direct speech - "shall".
(direct speech):I will telephone you, so soon as my father shall arrive.
(indirect speech): (She told me) that she would telephone me, so soon as her father should arrive.
Unmistakably past tenses, I'm afraid.
I thought the "only a British usage" a bit rich. You people in the colonies really must give us more time to learn your language. We're doing our best!

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> Ivy29,
> Re:" Would is a simple marker of the english conditional: Every morning he would get up."
> If you are taking "would" in this context as a conditional, I'm afraid that you have not understood it. It is a past tense, as NewDestinyX has been kind enough to point out.
> By the way re your later statement:" 'Let' and 'do' are not registered as modals in my English grammar books."
> "let" is a full-time 'modal' and, as I was careful to explain in my earlier post, "do/did" is a part-time member of the group, adopting the functions of the regular 'modals', when English verbs (except "to have" and "to be") are either negative or interrogative:
> e.g.
> I take sugar in tea.
> I do not _take_ sugar in tea.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Virgilio to disagree. Let and DO are not modal auxiliaries.
> DO and HAVE are auxiliaries not modals.
> OXFORD does not mention 'let' as a modal as well as Betty Azar.
> 
> Reported speech yes uses would as the past form of will, should of shall, could of can, etc. One exception confirms the rule.
> Do I _take_ sugar in tea?
> 
> (In current spoken English even "to have" is more and more negativised and interrogativised by "do/did".)
> e.g.
> "Do you _have_ a car?" (instead of ) "Have you a car?"
> 
> ('modal' underlined, 'naked' infinitive in italics)
> 
> If you grammar book does not include "let" as a 'modal', I would write to the authors suggesting the correction.
> 
> One more point re:" Would is a simple marker of the english conditional"
> I'm not sure what 'marker' means in this context but the English equivalent of the 'conditional' of the Romance languages uses "would" as an aorist tense, its timelessness being very aptly suggested by the fact that it is the past tense of the verb "will", which is associated in the English mind with futurity, and thus a tense which is both future and past, and hence "timeless".
> The same applies, of course, also to "should" for the same reason.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


 
*Reported speech* yes, it  uses would as the past form of will, should of shall, could of can, etc. One exception confirms the rule.

Sorry Virgilio to disagree. Let and DO are not modal auxiliaries.
DO and HAVE are auxiliaries not modals.
OXFORD does not mention 'let' as a modal as well as Betty Azar. 
If you have a source where 'let' and DO are modals it will be appreciated.

Ivy29


----------



## virgilio

Ivy29,
Re:"*Reported speech* yes, it  uses would as the past form of will, should of shall, could of can, etc. One exception confirms the rule."
Thank you for your corroboration. Are you keeping the exception a secret or may I too share it?

   Re "let and "do",   I hear what you say.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> Thanks for the reply. RE:"Would in your 1st example is an imperfect past usage that English uses to replace 'used to'"
> That's a bit question-begging, isn't it? If you read in a novel "Every morning he would get up at seven ..etc", on what basis do you claim to know that the author - whoever he might be - was really thinking "Every morning he used to get up at seven..etc" but decided to 'replace' "used to" with "would"?
> I agree that the "used to" version gets pretty close to the connotations of "would" in this instance but let's leave the author to choose his own words, please!


 In this thread, at this point in the thread we're still talking "grammar" not "semantics", thank you..  Fact: "would" in your sentence is not a 'conditional' - but the modal-like expression: used to.



> _<<NewdestinyX: Furthermore re:"the 'should' you mention is only a British usage but is a future inflection -- not a past one">>_
> 
> I'm afraid I must disagree. It is an example, of course, of Indirect Speech and the author (given the secondary or 'historic' tense-sequence dictated by the tense of the main verb "told") naturally uses the past tense of the verb of the original direct speech - "shall".
> (direct speech):I will telephone you, so soon as my father shall arrive.
> (indirect speech): (She told me) that she would telephone me, so soon as her father should arrive.
> Unmistakably past tenses, I'm afraid.


 One problem. This is archaic usage. Not used on either continent anymore, my friend -- except by a college professor wishing to sound archaic. Your sentences are perfect English --from the 1700-1800'eds  "Should", used that way, doesn't even have an entry in my dictionary - and though I won't bet money -- I'd doubt it's in yours either... (Check 'Oxford' for me, won't you, chap?)

And you haven't offered any explanations for any of my rebuttal sentence examples from the last 2 posts. You haven't been able to explain how "should" is used in those clearly 'non-past' syntaxes.

Oh -- I forgot to add 'may', 'might' to the list of defective modals verbs needing 'have' to transmit past.


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> Ivy29,
> Re:"*Reported speech* yes, it uses would as the past form of will, should of shall, could of can, etc. One exception confirms the rule."
> Thank you for your corroboration. Are you keeping the exception a secret or may I too share it?
> 
> Re "let and "do", I hear what you say.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


 
Your perception about reported speech is acepted, and this very exception of the past Modals, certainly confirm the rule that the usage of would is the marker of the conditional tense, and the standard past of the modals are : modal+have+pp.
There is no reason to keep *as a secret the exception* of the Modals with the reported speech. 
Will also is the standard marker of the future.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> Ivy29,
> Re:"*Reported speech* yes, it  uses would as the past form of will, should of shall, could of can, etc. One exception confirms the rule."
> Thank you for your corroboration. Are you keeping the exception a secret or may I too share it?
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio



Virgilio, I do also stand corrected with regard to 'reported speech'. That's the last vestige of the convention you cited with would as past of will, etc. I get myself into trouble in a number of settings with reported speech being an exception to the rule in English and Spanish. But I certainly accept: would and could as pasts in reported speech. "Should" still doesn't work for me as a past even in reported speech. "Shall" is a future and, in modern speech, a synonym of 'will' (are rarely used). So _should_ would never be used as its past.

He will...
He said he would (past)...

He can...
He said he could (past)...

He shall... (archaic) -- shall = will
He said he "would"

So 'would' past of 'will' and 'could' past of 'can' survive in reported speech.

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Your perception about reported speech is acepted, and this very exception of the past Modals, certainly confirm the rule that the usage of would is the marker of the conditional tense, and the standard past of the modals are : modal+have+pp.
> There is no reason to keep *as a secret the exception* of the Modals with the reported speech.
> Will also is the standard marker of the future.
> 
> Ivy29



Agreed. But there is one other exception to the rule of 'modal+ have+pp' as the standard past structure with modals.
"Could" can transmit the past 'without _have_' in both reported speech (as we've acknowledged) and with past "physical ability & talent". 

John *can* play baseball better than anyone in the major leagues. (can= is able to = puede)
Twenty years ago John *could* play baseball better than anyone... (could = used to be able to = podía)

In that context/semantic 'could' does *not* need '_have_' to transmit past. But when the context is 'possibility' "could" needs _have_ to transmit past.

Twenty years ago he *could have* been a bonus-baby in baseball. (past possibility - _could_, alone, would be incorrect)

This is the only other exception in addition to the reported speech syntaxes.
The modals: will, shall, can - can't project past and are locked to present or future semantics
The modals: may, must-- can project past only with the auxiliary _have_. (some could consider 'may' in group 1)
The modals: should, ought to, would, might-- can project past (without _have_) in reported speech syntaxes only
The modal: could --can project past (without _have_) in reported speech syntaxes and in syntaxes regarding physical ability or talent.

Grant


----------



## virgilio

NDX and Ivy29,
                     If I have understood your posts aright, there would seem now to be *two* of these "exceptions" to your alleged rule about "would", "could". "should" (etc) not being past tenses. If things go on like this, perhaps the 'exceptions' may be found after all to have been the 'rule' all the time!

NDX,
Re your:"This is archaic usage. Not used on either continent anymore, my friend -- except by a college professor wishing to sound archaic. Your sentences are perfect English --from the 1700-1800'eds  "Should", used that way, doesn't even have an entry in my dictionary - and though I won't bet money -- I'd doubt it's in yours either... (Check 'Oxford' for me, won't you, chap?)"

Wow, What a 'tour de force'! Let me see if I've understood you. 
(1) English which you believe to be 'archaic' is no longer sufficiently valid for reference to be made to it?
(2) The language of 'college professors" whom you believe to have a penchant for the old-fashioned may safely be disregarded. (Poor Shakespeare, I knew he would never last!).

You're such a democrat!

As for the dictionaries you mention, I'm afraid I rarely use English dictionaries, (though I have just found an excellent Arabic-English dictionary (Hans Wehr)) and would be disinclined anyway - Hans Wehr excepted - to consider them "authorities" on syntax.

All the best
Virg


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NDX and Ivy29,
> If I have understood your posts aright, there would seem now to be *two* of these "exceptions" to your alleged rule about "would", "could". "should" (etc) not being past tenses. If things go on like this, perhaps the 'exceptions' may be found after all to have been the 'rule' all the time!


 No more exceptions, Virg. But it was very useful to rout them out for student's sake. Obviously it affects the translations to Spanish and vice versa.



virgilio said:


> NewdestinyX said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This is archaic usage. Not used on either continent anymore, my friend -- except by a college professor wishing to sound archaic. Your sentences are perfect English --from the 1700-1800'eds  "Should", used that way, doesn't even have an entry in my dictionary - and though I won't bet money -- I'd doubt it's in yours either... (Check 'Oxford' for me, won't you, chap?)"
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, What a 'tour de force'! Let me see if I've understood you.
> (1) English which you believe to be 'archaic' is no longer sufficiently valid for reference to be made to it?
> (2) The language of 'college professors" whom you believe to have a penchant for the old-fashioned may safely be disregarded. (Poor Shakespeare, I knew he would never last!).
> 
> You're such a democrat!
Click to expand...


Here's the issue, Virg. It's about 'scope' and what's practical for learning. There's a folder on this site called "etymology". It's rarely visited -- wonder why. But you and I love this stuff -- the problem is that a student needs the 'ready to use' stuff and is rarely interested in the 'what we said 100 years ago' stuff. No - 'archaic' is not valid for reference in most cases because it doesn't answer 'real' questions. That's why I jump in with the force I do and use superlatives like 'never' and 'ever'. As I said the problem is one of scope. When a kid needs to learn to count out change to a customer at the supermarket check out line, does the supervisor teach him algebra? Of course not. Why not? It doesn't help. Leave it to the halls of academia -- or in this case the 'etymology' folder. I'm not trying to place any limitations upon my esteemed colleague. May it never be.. But I am saying "yes" and "yes" to questions 1 and 2 above and moreover giving you insight into why you get such a 'visceral' reaction from me sometimes. "Don't teach the kid algebra -- he just needs addition...." 

Kind regards,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

In thinking about this a little more I wanted to make this summary for 'target practice'. I'm referring to the modern usage. It occured to me as these groups came together -- that Virgilio's observation of the present and pasts of modals still very much affects a big part of modern usage in the reported speech. I admit to underplaying that reality a little too much in my early statements. See if this works:

The modals: *will*, *shall*, *can*,* had better*,* has/have got to* - can't project past and are locked to present or future semantics
The modals: *may*, *must*-- can project past only with the auxiliary _have_. (some could consider 'may' in group 1)
The modals: *should*, *ought to*, *would*, *might*-- can project past (without _have_) in reported speech syntaxes only
The modal: *could* --can project past (without _have_) in reported speech syntaxes and in syntaxes regarding physical ability or talent.

I'm pretty sure that's accurate. Any takers?

Grant


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      Re your"It's about 'scope' and what's practical for learning." I'm sorry I thought the forum was about grammar/gramática. I didn't realise that it was only about the sort of pre-digested, emulsified notions of that subject which are considered to be within the attention-span limits of the "kid" you describe. My mistake - I don't belong here and shall transfer my attentions elsewhere.
Before I go, just one parting thought - and of an 'etymological' nature at that! 
You wrote:"the problem is that a student needs the 'ready to use' stuff and is rarely interested in the 'what we said 100 years ago' stuff."

Leaving aside the scarcely flattering assessment of your students which this rather monolithic assertion implies, if what you write were true, they would hardly be *students  *at all.
By its etymology the word "student" means "an enthusiastic person" and in the field of learning this is taken to mean "enthusiastic to learn".
Your description of what I take to be your typical student suggests a very limited enthusiasm, I must say.
I know what you mean, of course, and I sympathise. Our UK education system is in some areas likewise infested with disaffected and unwilling 'students'.
They say that today's solecisms are tomorrow's grammar; I suppose by extension today's ignorance is tomorrow's science.

Anyway, I have enjoyed our little discussions 
With very best wishes,
Virgilio


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> In thinking about this a little more I wanted to make this summary for 'target practice'. I'm referring to the modern usage. It occured to me as these groups came together -- that Virgilio's observation of the present and pasts of modals still very much affects a big part of modern usage in the reported speech. I admit to underplaying that reality a little too much in my early statements. See if this works:
> 
> The modals: *will*, *shall*, *can*,* had better*,* has/have got to* - can't project past and are locked to present or future semantics
> The modals: *may*, *must*-- can project past only with the auxiliary _have_. (some could consider 'may' in group 1)
> The modals: *should*, *ought to*, *would*, *might*-- can project past (without _have_) in reported speech syntaxes only
> The modal: *could* --can project past (without _have_) in reported speech syntaxes and in syntaxes regarding physical ability or talent.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's accurate. Any takers?
> 
> Grant


 
According to Martin Hewings, for general ability *could*.
For *specific achievement*, particularly if it is difficult, requiring some effort *be able to* is used NOT could. *John was able to leave the hospital, after 3 months in hospital*

Ivy29


----------

