# I could have swum... - modal perfect or perfect modal



## Fabiola79

Hi,

Let's take a sentence:
I could have swum at the beach yesterday.

In English is it an example of modal perfect or perfect modal ?

Thank you for your answer


----------



## Liam Lew's

It's an example of conditional perfect.
Please see this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_perfect


----------



## Fabiola79

What about modal perfect ?


----------



## Liam Lew's

I've never heard of this term. I always used conditional perfect. But maybe the term exists. However, I think conditional perfect is the common term for the construction.


----------



## Fabiola79

Are there also terms like 'conditional simple', 'conditional perfect continuous'
or 'passive conditional simple' ?


----------



## Liam Lew's

Fabiola79 said:


> Are there also terms like 'conditional simple', 'conditional perfect continuous'
> or 'passive conditional simple' ?


Of course there are. This page provides an overview of all the tenses. Please don't be frightened it might be slaying. Scroll down to the end of the page and you'll find the entries about the conditional forms. (http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/grammar/active_passive.htm)

Here you find an overview of all the tenses in the passive voice, including the conditionals (it might be also slaying; its a lot of information):http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/grammar/active_passive.htm


Note: I'm inclined not to use terms like "conditional perfect progressive passive". I would rather say passive or passive voice of the conditional perfect progressive.


----------



## Fabiola79

Do 'will' and 'would' belong to modals ?


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Yes, Fabiola.
If one abandons the old (and wrong) terminology - which treats Will, Would, etc. as "defective verbs", then the "Modal Auxiliaries" in English are: can could may might will would shall should must.
GS 
PS Ought is a semi-modal in that it's always followed by "to"; need and dare can be "used as" modals under certain circumstances.


----------



## Fabiola79

In which circumstances 'need' and 'dare' can be used as modals ?

Thank you


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Need you ask, dare I say?  Need I say more?


----------



## Liam Lew's

Just read this Wiki article and you know better about it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_verb
The can be used as modals whenever they have the function of a modal and that's almost throughout the case. What these functions are is explained in the article.
But note that they don't form constructions like the conditional perfect. They are at least not called so if used in that way(when even done at all).

I hope the sites I posted helped you.


----------



## Fabiola79

I didn't understand the post no. 10.
Please explain in to me.
Thank you


----------



## bennymix

To the OP.  Yes, it's perfect modal.  It refers to something past, but is not labelled a tense.

http://www.learnamericanenglishonline.com/Yellow Level/Y12 Perfect Modals.html


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Hello Fabiola79.  There are lots of English grammar sites such as this one (source: improveenglishonline.com) with the answer to your question.  It's not reasonable to expect whole points of grammar to be explained.  If you have a particular query about a particular usage that is causing you problems, I'm sure we will be happy to explain any particular point.  But you have to do the spadework (of looking at the grammar) yourself, I think. 

#10 shows three examples of "need" or "dare" used as modal verbs.


----------



## Fabiola79

Enquiring Mind said:


> Need you ask, dare I say? Need I say more?



Is it written in full 'I need you to ask' ?
Is 'need' a modal here ?

Thank you for your answer


----------



## pob14

Fabiola79 said:


> Is it written in full 'I need you to ask' ?


No, it's "do you need to ask?"  (Not having any idea what a modal is, I can't help with the rest of your question.)


----------



## Fabiola79

Please help me ! Tell me if it's a modal in a sentence 'I need you to ask'.


----------



## Liam Lew's

Look at Enquiring Mind's post #14 in which he refers to post ten. He says clearly that it is used as a modal in this case.
See:
We need more water. (No modal use)
Need you ask. (Modal use)

One of the main functions of modal verbs is to give more information about the main verb. Now look at the sample sentences and you should know what is meant. And please read the Wiki article again. It gives some information on it.
I think it might help you to know the functions modal verbs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_verb

I hope I helped you.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Hello Fabiola79.  
Need you ask = Do you need to ask? Is it necessary that you ask? Is it necessary for you to ask? 
Need I say more = Do I need to say more? Is it necessary that I say more? Is it necessary for me to say more?

Yes, it is a modal here.  See the entry in the OALD here.


----------



## Fabiola79

I have one more question.
A modal verb 'need' stays a modal verb even when the main verb is implicit in a sentence *'Yes, we need to' *meaning 'Yes, we need to do it'.

Am I right ?


----------



## Liam Lew's

I also thought about this question earlier. I would say that you are right. A modal stays a modal if the main verb is omitted but implied. 
This would not be the first grammatical topic where omitted but implied words don't change the classification.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Hello Fabiola79.  No, I don't think so.  

If you look at the relevant Wikipedia page here (under "dare and need, ") it says "In their uses as modals they govern a bare infinitive, and are usually restricted to questions and negative sentences", and just before that, when they are being used as ordinary (non-modal) verbs they are conjugated.  One of the features of modal verbs is that they are not conjugated, and they usually govern a bare infinitive. When "need" or "dare" are being used as ordinary (non-modal verbs), they are conjugated, and they govern a noun or "to" infinitive. 

*Need he leave *now? The train doesn't go for another half-hour. (modal: *verb not conjugated*, used in question, *governs bare infinitive*)
Yes he needs to leave now, just to be on the safe side. (non-modal: verb conjugated, governs "to" infinitive )

*Dare he* *put* his head in the lion's mouth? (modal)
If he dares to (do that), it might get bitten off. (non-modal)


----------



## bennymix

Quasi-modals are covered in detail, here:   

http://www.nicholeoberheu.com/wp-co...on-What-TESOL-Professional-Ought-to-Know1.pdf

They may often--and increasingly are-- conjugated, unlike modals.  "Need to" and "dare to" are examples.


----------



## se16teddy

Fabiola79 said:


> A modal verb 'need' stays a modal verb even when the main verb is implicit in a sentence *'Yes, we need to' *meaning 'Yes, we need to do it'


Fabiola, I don't know what definition of "modal" you are working to: you have not revealed this to us. 

For me, one of the *essential* characteristics of a modal verb is that it does not use "to" with a following infinitive. The fact that "Yes we need to" has the word "to" in it, meaning "to do it", proves that it is not being used as a modal verb. 

We can use modals without an explicit following verb: _Will you do it? Yes I will. _However, I think that a following infinitive is always implied.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Afraid not, Fabiola.
When "need" is followed by a "TO infinitive" - even if the infinitive is deleted - it's no longer a modal.
GS


----------



## Fabiola79

I guess I understand how it works.

In a sentence _Need I say more ? _'need' is a modal,
but in a sentence _Do I need to say more ? _'need' is no longer a modal_.

_Am I right ?


----------



## Liam Lew's

Yes you are right.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, Fabiola.
It has just come to my mind that you might think that a modal and a semi- modal would produce sentences with the same meaning. It's not so.
If I say "He does not need to go" what I'm saying is that my friend Tom has told me that HE DOES NOT FEEL THE NEED to go. This, I believe, would be a correct interpretation.
If I say "He need not go", this time the person who considers not necessary that he go IS ME.

Unfortunately, in real communication many use the two forms interchangeably, thus creating misunderstandings.

Best
GS


----------



## Fabiola79

Does _he need not go _mean _he doesn't need to go _or_ he doesn't have to go ( he has not to go ) _?

Thank you for your answer


----------



## bennymix

I must disagree with this, except as applied to the simple, basic modals, such as _can, should_, etc.



Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Afraid not, Fabiola.
> When "need" is followed by a "TO infinitive" - even if the infinitive is deleted - it's no longer a modal.
> GS



We are explicitly discussing semi-modals or quasi modals, e.g., _need to_.

These may occur before infinitives.

Here is a page on semi modals, giving these examples among others.

http://www.english-for-students.com/Semi-Modal-Auxiliary-Verbs.html

*//Need* :I need to come now.

_He need not take this exam._
​*Dare*  [...]
_
You dare to get up in the middle._//

The paper by Oberheu, a linguist, earlier cited, also has examples for these cases

After the central modals are the marginal modals, these are 
dare, need, ought to, and used to. Next are the modal idioms, these are
had better, would rather/sooner, be to, and have got to. 

[semi modal example]

_he hasn't got to go_


===

Lastly, and with all due respect,

[GS:] //"If I say "He does not need to go" what I'm saying is that my friend Tom  has told me that HE DOES NOT FEEL THE NEED to go. This, I believe, would  be a correct interpretation.//

In my opinion, the presence or  absence of infinitive does not necessarily connect with the issue of  objective or subjective need. 

Example:  My room-mate John is about  to leave for work, is just out the door.  I get a call from his boss  saying the company is closed due to an emergency.   I say to my other  room-mate Bill,
talking about John.  "He doesn't need to go**.  Catch him before he gets in the car."

**ADDED:  Alternatively, "He need not go to work today."​


----------



## Fabiola79

But what does it mean _he need not go _?
Is it _he doesn't need to go _or _he doesn't have to go ( he has not to go ) _?


----------



## bennymix

'He doesn't need to go' is the same as 'he need not go.'  The meaning is  "There is no need, on his part, to go." 
In my opinion, at least.  Other native speakers?


----------



## bennymix

If I may add a footnote:  Giorgio does well to raise the subjective/objective issue.  It does arise with semi-modals.
I am simply objecting to the particular conclusion he stated, for the particular verb in context.  The points below, made by Brinton have parallels with 'need to,'  under present discussion.

http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/lbrinton/HAVETO.PDF


  “The origin and development of the quasimodal ‘have to’ “

  Brinton, p. 4.

  There appears to be almost universal agreement about the semantic contrast between 
  have to and must  in their obligative reading: must is generally subjective, while have to 
  is always objective. That is, with must the speaker is normally expressing his or her  authority; the deontic source 
  is the speaker. With have to the deontic source is always  external to the speaker, either the authority of another 
  or the constraint of circumstances.
  Compare […] 
3. a. My children must eat an apple after their meals. 

b. My children have to eat an apple after their meals. 

  In (3a) the speaker seems to be compelling the children to eat an apple, while in (3b), 
  some outside authority, or an internal drive, compels the children.


----------



## Fabiola79

My question is:
What does it mean _he need not go _?
Is it _he doesn't need to go _or _he doesn't have to go ( he has not to go ) _?


----------



## bennymix

Let's stick with 'need to'.   I was simply mentioning a parallel with 'have to.'

'He doesn't need to go' is the same as 'he need not go.'   For these sentences, the objective interpretation (similar to the case of 'have to', example 3b, post#33).


----------



## Forero

Fabiola79 said:


> My question is:
> What does it mean _he need not go _?
> Is it _he doesn't need to go _or _he doesn't have to go ( he has not to go ) _?


To me, "He need not go" has various meanings. Sometimes it means something like "He is not required to go", and other times it means something like "There is no use in his going." In either of these senses, I see it as closer to "He doesn't have to go" than to "He doesn't need to go", but "need not" and "doesn't need to" have some overlap of meanings, and "doesn't have to" has other meanings too.

In your original question, are you asking which is "meant" to be interpreted as a perfect, "could" as a form of "can" or the other verb "swim"?

That depends on context.

In form, "could" is the past tense of "can", so "I could" might mean "I was able to"/"It was possible for me to", or it might mean, since modal past tenses double as conditionals, "I would be able to"/"It would be possible for me to". In either case, the perfect infinitive "(to) have swum" would have its usual meaning.

But because "can"/"could" has no past participle, the form "I could have" might be meant to express something like "I had been able to"/"It had been possible for me to" (past perfect meaning), or "I would have been able to"/"It would have been possible for me to" (conditional perfect meaning). In such a case, modal plus perfect infinitive takes the meaning of a (nonexistent) perfect form (tense or infinitive) of the modal plus a simple infinitive (e.g. "I could have swum"  = "I would have been able to swim").

In the sparse context given, I think "I could have swum at the beach yesterday" is most likely to mean "It was possible for me to swim at the beach yesterday (but I didn't know it)." It would take more context to fit with "I was able to have swum at the beach yesterday." Unfortunately, I don't know which meaning you would call "modal perfect" and which "perfect modal".


----------



## Fabiola79

So _he need not go _means rather_ he doesn't have to go_ ?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Fabiola79 said:


> So _he need not go _means rather_ he doesn't have to go_ ?


Yes, usually.  It uses the language of necessity rather than that of obligation, in a context where there may be little difference.

*He need not go* literally means that there is no necessity for him to go - ie. he can go if he likes, but nothing depends on his going.

*He has not to go* (which you seemed to suggest meant the same thing, in earlier posts) means something else entirely.  It usually means that he must not go: the speaker does not want him to go, or is relaying orders that he should not go.

Note the difference between *He has not to go* and *He does not have to go* (he's not obliged to go).


----------



## bennymix

'Need to' and 'have to' have multiple meanings, each, with some possible overlap.  Consult an online dictionary for lists.  

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/need  [see 2.]

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/have?q=have+to   [See 3.]



One needs context to discuss substitutions and their appropriateness.


----------



## Fabiola79

What is a diffference between *He has not to go* and *He does not have to go *?


----------



## bennymix

'He has not to go'  is VERY awkward and likely ungrammatical.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Fabiola79 said:


> What is a diffference between *He has not to go* and *He does not have to go *?


I think you need to respond to what you've been told, Fabiola.

I tried to explain the meaning of *He has not to go *- which is entirely grammatical and usual and not in the least awkward in BE, though it may be a little formal - in post 38.  If you didn't understand something, don't hesitate to ask.

I also said there that *He does not have to go* usually means he is not obliged to go - ie. something quite different.  

Forero also concerned himself in part with *He does not have to go*, in post 36.

If you don't respond to the explanations we have given, you discourage us from expanding further.


----------



## Fabiola79

So, in British English we can say interchangeably *He has not to go *and *he doesn't have to go.

*Am I right ?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Fabiola79 said:


> So, in British English we can say interchangeably *He has not to go *and *he doesn't have to go.
> 
> *Am I right ?


Yes, you are.

I told you this in post 38.  

I also pointed out that they have different meanings.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I was interested in the claim that* He has not to* was not idiomatic in AE.

Here is the form in Henry James's_ A Bundle of Letters_.

*I am afraid I learn much less, but, fortunately, I have not to pass an examination - except if mamma takes it into her head to examine me.*

Interestingly, in BE that would probably be *I do not have to pass an examination*.


----------



## Fabiola79

Please tell me only in which situations do you say *He has not to go *and in which situations *He doesn't have to go*.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Fabiola79 said:


> Please tell me only in which situations do you say *He has not to go *and in which situations *He doesn't have to go*.


You still haven't responded to people's attempts to explain this to you, Fabiola.  I addressed this very matter in post 42.  You write as though you don't read the answers we give you.

There's no point in my just repeating myself, or answering at all, if you don't read what people write.  

This is quite a complicated issue.  If you don't respond to the points we make to you, you make it very hard for us to know how best to help you.

If you don't understand this, I suspect you'd be well advised studying a less complicated point of grammar.


----------



## JulianStuart

This thread has rambled far and wide with the OP continually asking new questions without proper context (contravening Forum Rules 2 and 3) and, apparently, not always paying attention to the answers provided.  While that discussion might conceivably be useful on an English Grammar site, it is out of place in a Dictionary forum.  I am closing the thread, with the reminders

1) that Forum Rule 2 says



> One topic per thread / No chatting.
> Stay on the topic of the first post in each thread.
> Ask about only one topic in each thread. If you have more than one question, open a thread for each.
> If you wish to talk about a related subject that is different from the question posed in the first post of the thread, open a new thread.
> If you wish to talk about an unrelated subject or make an unrelated comment to another member, use the forum’s private message (PM) feature. No chatting.
> Open only one thread for each question. Do not duplicate threads.



and 2)


> What we do in the English Only forum
> We answer *specific* questions about *words or phrases* in a complete sentence with *context and background *in a respectful, helpful and cordial manner.


----------

