# EN: should to



## Daremo

Dear members,

I've been confronted with "should to" for the first time today; i've always been taught at school that a modal can't be followed by "to", that it's followed by an infinitive without to.

Does should to differ from the "regular"(?) should ?

Thank you for your help


----------



## marget

Daremo said:


> Dear members,
> 
> I've been confronted with "should to" for the first time today; i've always been taught at school that a modal can't be followed by "to", that it's followed by an infinitive without to.
> 
> Does should to differ from the "regular"(?) should ?
> 
> Thank you for your help


I can't imagine a context in which _should to_ would be correct.  Can you provide a complete sentence?


----------



## geostan

I can only think that it is a sentence in which the _to_ was not a connective but rather part of a phrase that happened to follow _should_.
_
One should to a greater or lesser degree follow instructions._

Other than this it seems impossible.


----------



## quinoa

Phew! I've got nothing to worry about now!
Should here is linked to follow : To a greater or lesser degree, one should follow ....


----------



## Thomas1

_Ought to_ is used with _to _and it means the same what _should_.


----------



## MHastings

Daremo, you're correct regarding modals. The example you give is poorly punctuated. quinoa has the right idea. It should be "_To a greater or lesser degree, one should follow instructions,_" or "_One should, to a greater or lesser degree, follow instructions._"


----------



## Woofer

"should to/should too" is also commonly, though ungrammatically, used in spoken language as an intensifier.  In AE at least, this idiom is strongly associated with the way children speak. I'm not sure if this is what you've encountered, but you can recognize the idiom by a strong emphasis on the "too".

You should _too _stay in your seat or you'll get in trouble.


----------



## Daremo

To me, it is incorrect too but i saw it yesterday in quite a serious context (however i can't remeber it erf)

Some examples for English/American sites:
"We should to get rid of the Federal Reserve."

"Which steps should to be taken by American President Obama to take the country out of economic crisis?"

And: "
Today, during gym class, my teacher insisted that everyone should to relieve some stress by throwing a basketball at the wall. I wound up and hurled the thing at the wall, it bounced back and hit me in the stomach. I began to vomit uncontrollably. Even my teacher laughed. FML"


Is there an explanation for each of these :
The third one is very strange for me.  Is it "Today, /during gym class,/ my teacher insisted that everyone should to relieve some stress/ by throwing a basketball at the wall./


If the to is here linked to relieve (= in order to) wouldn't it be : Today/ during gym class/ my teacher insisted that everyone should/ to relieve some stress/ trow a basketball at the wall.




???


----------



## MHastings

Yes, there is an explanation:  They are all incorrect, probably the result of not proofreading.  In any case, they should be:

"We should get rid of the Federal Reserve."

"Which steps should be taken by American President Obama to take the country out of economic crisis?"

"Today, during gym class, my teacher insisted that everyone should relieve some stress by throwing a basketball at the wall."

One of the results of the "instant publishing" enabled by the internet is that editing is not always as thorough as it should be.


----------



## Thomas1

Daremo said:


> [...]
> I've been confronted with "should to" for the first time today; i've always been taught at school that a modal can't be followed by "to", that it's followed by an infinitive without to.[...]





MHastings said:


> Daremo, you're correct regarding modals. [...]


Is that always true? There are modal verbs in English that are followed by _to _plus infinitive, one of them being _ought_, I am talking about British English. There aren't many of them, but they exist. Having said that, _should _is definitely not one of them.


----------



## MHastings

You're right about "ought to", Thomas1, (although it's not uniquely British).  And, yes, should definitely does *not* take "to".

But ought is the only modal I can find that does take "to".  What are the others?


----------



## Thomas1

MHastings said:


> You're right about "ought to", Thomas1, (although it's not uniquely British).  [...]


I made the provision for British English, because I learn it and I know _ought _is used with to in it and I also know that some dialects of English don't use _to _with _ought_.



> But ought is the only modal I can find that does take "to".  What are the others?


Here you are: used to, dare to, need to. Though the last two take "to"  as regular verbs, and the bare infinitive as modal verbs. 
Some sources call these three semi-modals.


----------



## quinoa

Ce qui est intéressant avec ought, c'est qu'il est une ancienne forme de prétérit de have. Si had est le prétérit temporel, ought est le prétérit à valeur modale (montrant que l'énonciateur s'implique dans l'énoncé qu'il produit), c'est ce qui explique son fonctionnement modal.
C'est pourquoi ought to est dans certains cas proche de have to, mais la contrainte n'est plus présentée comme objective, et ne pèse pas de manière aussi forte en raison du prétérit à valeur modale, traduisant le point de vue de l'énonciateur.

Ought to est donc proche de should et de must :
A child of that age ought to be in bed at 9.
A child of that age should be in bed at 9.
A child of that age must be in bed at 9.

Avec must, l'énonciateur reprend à son compte un code pré-établi (il est très investi dans l'obligation énoncée).
Avec ought to, il signale l'écart qui existe par rapport à ce code sans s'impliquer personnellement (ou en s'impliquant à minima).
Avec should, il adresse un conseil ou un reproche à son coénonciateur. (Il est très investi).

J'ai été un peu long.....


----------



## Thomas1

quinoa said:


> Ce qui est intéressant avec ought, c'est qu'il est une ancienne forme de prétérit de have. Si had est le prétérit temporel, ought est le prétérit à valeur modale (montrant que l'énonciateur s'implique dans l'énoncé qu'il produit), c'est ce qui explique son fonctionnement modal.
> C'est pourquoi ought to est dans certains cas proche de have to, mais la contrainte n'est plus présentée comme objective, et ne pèse pas de manière aussi forte en raison du prétérit à valeur modale, traduisant le point de vue de l'énonciateur.[...]


Hm... je sais pas, Quinoa. _Ought_ c'est une ancienne forme du verbe _owe_ (voir ici). _Owe _signifie bien sûr _have_, mais es-tu sûr qu'«ought» ce soit une ancienne forme de _have _?


----------



## quinoa

C'est ce que j'ai appris à l'université....


----------



## MHastings

Thomas1, I've never heard of those as being modals.  Just to make sure, I checked with Oxford, and, as far as I can determine, they're regular verbs.  Maybe I've missed something.  Just ouf of curiosity, where did you learn that they were modals?


----------



## Thomas1

MHastings said:


> Thomas1, I've never heard of those as being modals.  Just to make sure, I checked with Oxford, and, as far as I can determine, they're regular verbs.  Maybe I've missed something.  Just ouf of curiosity, where did you learn that they were modals?


Which Oxford? Is it a dictionary or a grammar manual?

_A Practical English Grammar_ by A. J. Thomson published by Oxford calls them semi-auxiliaries. 

Samples of the theoretical part I wrote in my post:
He needs to see a doctor. (regular verb)
You need not answer. (modal verb)

I have come across the names in other sources, but the one I gave is the only one I have at hand right now.


----------



## MHastings

I checked the Oxford online dictionary.  But it seems that you've entered an area better left to the experts.  And I'm sure if you check the Oxford website, they will have more information on this subject.

However, just as a side-note, "You need not answer" is simply another way of saying "You don't need to answer."


----------



## quinoa

In the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English *ought* has got a negative form *oughn't*, giving examples :"I wonder whether I *oughn't to* speak to him" and "*Ought* I *to* leave tomorrow, No, you needn't leave till Thursday."
It is not considered to be exactly a modal like May, Can, Must and so on, but it is alike. That's what is taught at university in France.


----------

