# Modal dare in the past



## vladv

Could a native speaker explain how one can use the verb "dare" in its modal incarnation (though rare it is) when talking about the past? How dare she talk to me like that? (now) How dared she talk like that (yesterday)? Or should I use only the basic form "dare" in both cases (even when talking about the past) How dare she talk yesterday?


----------



## PaulQ

Your context does not represent a good example:

How *dare *she talk to me like that? -> obviously that "daring" has taken place in the past. The use of the present tense is there because the speaker is suggesting that "her" character has not changed and that she is still the sort or person who dares to do such things.

If you think that the incident was unique, you would say
"She is such a timid person, how *did *she *dare *to speak to me like that?"
"She is such a timid person, how it surprised me that she dared [to] speak to me like that."
edited 17:00 GMT

Compare
"John is afraid of heights and when he told me that he had climbed on the roof, I wondered how he *had dared* to do that."

"None of the peasants *dared *(habitual action in the past) to kill the dragon and therefore they sent for Sir PaulQ the well-known knight."

"Good news!" Announced Sir PaulQ "Today I *have dared* to enter the dragon's lair; tomorrow, I will slay the beast!"


----------



## vladv

"how she *dared* [to] speak to me like that?" - in this example the verb "dared" is modal? It makes a question without  the auxiallry?


----------



## PaulQ

vladv said:


> "how she *dared* [to] speak to me like that?"


This does not seem to be a question - it looks like a noun clause:

"How she *dared* [to] speak to me like that will remain a mystery" -> "It will remain a mystery."


----------



## Tyrion Lann

How dare you talk to me like that? 
( Here dare is a semi-model verb it can't be "dared" in this construction, but like "can" can  be "can't" same way "dare" can be "daren't" in other constructions )
Though, you could say: How dare you talk to me like that yesterday? ( I guess)
Treat it( how dare you/she) as an idiom.

Dare as a main verb, which can be followed by a to-infinitive or an infinitive without to.

No one dares (to) talk to me like that. (ordinary verb)

No one dare talk to me like that. (semi-modal verb)

Past from ( use dear as main verb)

How did you dare (to) imply that I was lying?

Didn't you dare (to) imply that I was lying?

Daren't you imply that I was lying?( Semi-model)


----------



## Andygc

PaulQ said:


> how she *dared* [to] speak to me like that?"


 
... how dared she speak to me ... ? That's a question.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

> "She is such a timid person, how she *dared* [to] speak to me like that?"


 I'm sure I would say " ..., how dared she?"
We have a regular past form 'dared' used modally to form a question by inversion without the auxiliary 'did'.


----------



## PaulQ

vladv said:


> "how she *dared* [to] speak to me like that?"





PaulQ said:


> This does not seem to be a question - it looks like a noun clause:





Andygc said:


> ... how dared she speak to me ... ? That's a question.


Ah I didn't bother looking for it, as Vladv had written "in *this *example the verb "dared" is modal?" and I assumed that the question mark was an error. It appears that Vladv meant "in *that *example, *is* the verb "dared" *a* modal?"
Now it's corrected: it is a modal.


----------



## billj

"Dare" can be both a lexical verb and an auxiliary one. As an auxiliary (modal) it occurs only in non-affirmative contexts and takes a bare infinitival complement. Lexical "dare" mostly occurs in non-affirmatives too, but is not restricted to them. Note also that lexical "dare" requires _do_-support in negation and inversion.

_I daren't tell anyone_. [modal aux usage]
_I didn't dare to tell anyone_. [lexical usage]


----------



## Tyrion Lann

How could "dared" be a model verb?
If dare is used as a model verb, I guess, it can be neither dared nor dares(a third person -s in the present).

Well, definitely you all know much better than I do, but I said what I knew, I may be wrong.


----------



## billj

We know that "dare" can be an auxiliary because it has the negative form "daren't". Only auxiliaries have negative inflectional forms ("couldn't", "aren't", "won't" etc). 

A further difference is that auxiliary "dare" has only primary forms, while lexical "dare" has a past-participle form, as in "She had dared to contradict him".


----------



## Tyrion Lann

I know it can be "dared" but only if you use it as a ordinary verb.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

vladv said:


> How dared she talk like that (yesterday)? [...]


That's just possible but _How did she dare talk to me like that?_ would be more usual.

Note that in its modal incarnation_ dare _cannot mean to challenge or provoke:

We need the to-infinitive in cases like_ He dared me to jump in the water._

It can be used in many cases where _dare_ means to have the boldness to do something:_ Nobody, even if they had wanted to, dared say no. _


Tyrion Lann said:


> I know it can be "dared" but only if you use it as a ordinary verb.


I'm afraid this isn't so, Tyrion.

Look at my last example, above: _Nobody, even if they had wanted to, dared say no._


----------



## Chasint

billj said:


> "Dare" can be both a lexical verb and an auxiliary one. As an auxiliary (modal) it occurs only in non-affirmative contexts and takes a bare infinitival complement. Lexical "dare" mostly occurs in non-affirmatives too, but is not restricted to them. Note also that lexical "dare" requires _do_-support in negation and inversion.
> 
> _I daren't tell anyone_. [modal aux usage]
> _I didn't dare to tell anyone_. [lexical usage]



_I dare not tell anyone_.

_I daredn't tell anyone._


> She _daredn't_ give Emma permission to continue the search. She _daredn't_ say she was sorry. She _daredn't_ abate one jot or tittle of her loathsome simulated indignation.
> *The Cliff End By E. Ch.Booth*
> The Cliff End


----------



## Loob

Chasint said:


> I daredn't tell anyone.


Gosh, that's a weird one. I've never seen/heard that.


----------



## lingobingo

How dare she talk to me like that? 
How dared she talk to me like that? 
How dare she talk yesterday? 

Still, I like Charles — I respect him — I pity him, poor murdered king! Yes, his enemies were the worst: they shed blood they had no right to shed. How dared they kill him!" (Charlotte Brontë, _Jane Eyre_, 1847)​


----------



## Loob

lingobingo said:


> How dare she talk to me like that?
> How dared she talk to me like that?
> How dare she talk yesterday?


I don't think any of those work with the addition of negative "n't". Do you agree, lingo?


----------



## lingobingo

No. It doesn’t work in the negative. I was just responding to the original question.

But you can of course say something like “How dare she not answer my letters!”


----------



## Loob

Ah, right, the original question had nothing to do with negatives.
Thank you
_<Confused of Gloucester>_


----------



## Tyrion Lann

It is good to see that sometimes natives go confused, too.


----------



## lingobingo

Loob said:


> Ah, right, the original question had nothing to do with negatives.
> Thank you
> _<Confused of Gloucester>_


Sorry, Loob. My fault! I should have copied the OP at the top of my post, to show that I’d been too lazy to read the rest of the posts!


----------



## Vronsky

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, ed.5:

*Dare* can be used like a modal verb, followed by an infinitive without 'to', in negative sentences and questions. It can also be used as an ordinary verb, followed by an infinitive with or without 'to'.  The past form is _*dared* _for both uses.​
In the new edition they removed the sentence "The past form is _dared _for both uses," but they have an example of "*dared*" as a modal verb:

Dare can also be used as a modal verb, followed by the base form  (=infinitive without ‘to’), especially in negatives and questions:​_Not many people dared argue. _​_dare | meaning of dare in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English | LDOCE_​


----------



## billj

Chasint said:


> _I dare not tell anyone_.
> 
> _I daredn't tell anyone._



The book you quote from is over 100 years old.  There's no "daredn't" in Present-day English, so I don't see the relevance of your post. In any case, it would be the auxiliary use of "dare", as the absence of _do_-support demonstrates.


----------



## velisarius

It's just occurred to me that, whereas we may still use _How dare you/he...? _in a rhetorical question, we don't often use the past tense forms _How dared he...? _in today's English, and _How dared you...?_ hardly at all.

_How dare you speak to me like that!
How dare he speak to you like that!

How dared you speak to me like that the other day!
How dared he speak to you like that the other day!_

With auxiliary _did_: 
_How did you dare speak to me like that the other day?
How did he dare speak to you like that the other day?_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

billj said:


> A further difference is that auxiliary "dare" has only primary forms, while lexical "dare" has a past-participle form, as in "She had dared to contradict him".


So you don't think we can say _She hadn't dared contradict him_?  That seems to me entirely natural.


----------



## billj

Thomas Tompion said:


> So you don't think we can say _She hadn't dared contradict him_?  That seems to me entirely natural.


I said in #11 that lexical "dare" had a past participle.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

billj said:


> I said in #11 that lexical "dare" had a past participle.


I'm sorry that I have to explain this.    Here's what you said:


billj said:


> A further difference is that auxiliary "dare" has only primary forms, while lexical "dare" has a past-participle form, as in "She had dared to contradict him".


"While lexical "dare" has a past-participle form".  The obvious inference is that the auxiliary dare has only primary forms, and no past-participle form, which suggests that the sentence I proposed is incorrect.

Don't you think then that we can say _She hadn't dared contradict him_?


----------



## billj

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm sorry that I have to explain this.    Here's what you said:
> "While lexical "dare" has a past-participle form".  The obvious inference is that the auxiliary dare has only primary forms, and no past-participle form, which suggests that the sentence I proposed is incorrect.
> 
> Don't you think then that we can say _She hadn't dared contradict him_?



Lexical "dare" has the usual forms associated with lexical verbs, including a past participle, as in the example I gave in #11.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

billj said:


> Lexical "dare" has the usual forms associated with lexical verbs, including a past participle, as in the example I gave in #11.


Do you really not see the point? 

I'll try a third time: Don't you think that we can say _She hadn't dared contradict him_?

The point is, of course, that your #11 suggests, as I have illustrated, that the sentence is wrong.  I wish to know if you really think it's wrong, or stand by the point you were making in #11 (that the modal dare has no past participle use), which I consider to be incorrect.

Maybe I have misunderstood your #11, in which case please show how.


----------



## billj

Thomas Tompion said:


> Do you really not see the point?
> 
> I'll try a third time: Don't you think that we can say _She hadn't dared contradict him_?
> 
> The point is, of course, that your #11 suggests, as I have illustrated, that the sentence is wrong.  I wish to know if you really think it's wrong, or stand by the point you were making in #11 (that the modal dare has no past participle use), which I consider to be incorrect.
> 
> Maybe I have misunderstood your #11, in which case please show how.



Why does my post # 11 (with relevant example) suggest your example is wrong?
And why do you think your example is of modal "dare"?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

billj said:


> Why does my post # 11 (with relevant example) suggest your example is wrong?
> And why do you think your example is of modal "dare"?


I've asked the same question three times now, without an answer.

I will, however, answer your questions.

Why does your post #11 suggest my example is wrong?  Because it says that _auxiliary "dare" has only primary forms, while lexical "dare" has a past-participle form, as in "She had dared to contradict him"_.   This implies that you think the modal _dare_ has no past participle.  So _She hadn't dared contradict him_ is wrong because it's a modal _dare_ using what you call a past-participle form.

Why do I think my example is of a modal _dare_?  Because _dared__ is followed by a bare infinitive rather than a to-infinitive._

Now you could be arguing that in_ She hadn't dared contradict him, dared_ is a lexical use and the_ to _has been elided.  But there's no knowing if you think this because you won't answer my question.


----------



## billj

Thomas Tompion said:


> I've asked the same question three times now, without an answer.
> 
> I will, however, answer your questions.
> 
> Why does your post #11 suggest my example is wrong?  Because it says that _auxiliary "dare" has only primary forms, while lexical "dare" has a past-participle form, as in "She had dared to contradict him"_.   This implies that you think the modal _dare_ has no past participle.  So _She hadn't dared contradict him_ is wrong because it's a modal _dare_ using what you call a past-participle form.
> 
> Why do I think my example is of a modal _dare_?  Because _dared__ is followed by a bare infinitive rather than a to-infinitive._
> 
> Now you could be arguing that in_ She hadn't dared contradict him, dared_ is a lexical use and the_ to _has been elided.  But there's no knowing if you think this because you won't answer my question.



Look, your example is of lexical "dare". It's the same as the example I gave at #11 except it's negative, while mine was positive. The "to" marker is irrelevant to the status of lexical "dare" since only lexical "dare" has secondary forms, such as part participles, as your example does. I said in #11 that auxiliary "dare" has only primary forms.

Is that clear enough?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

billj said:


> Look, your example is of lexical "dare". It's the same as the example I gave at #11 except it's negative, while mine was positive.


Let me help you.

You think that my example contains a lexical dare, so the answer to my question (Don't you think that we can say _She hadn't dared contradict him_?) is Yes, of course we can say that, and it's not inconsistent with what was said in #11 because, despite the fact that _dare_ is followed by a bare infinitive, it's not a modal dare.

Then we can move on to finding out what is the difference between a modal and a lexical _dare_ in use, for the simple analysis of which kind of infinitive follows it is clearly insufficient, in your view.


----------



## billj

Thomas Tompion said:


> Let me help you.
> 
> You think that my example contains a lexical dare, so the answer to my question (Don't you think that we can say _She hadn't dared contradict him_?) is Yes, of course we can say that, and it's not inconsistent with what was said in #11 because, despite the fact that _dare_ is followed by a bare infinitive, it's not a modal dare.
> 
> Then we can move on to finding out what is the difference between a modal and a lexical _dare_ in use, for the simple analysis of which kind of infinitive follows it is clearly insufficient, in your view.



I've already explained the differences very clearly. I'm sorry if you can't grasp them. Or are you just being awkward?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

billj said:


> I've already explained the differences very clearly. I'm sorry if you can't grasp them. Or are you just being awkward?


The problem is that you have said that the lexical dare can be presented in certain grammatical forms which are closed to the modal dare.  This is like saying that eagles can fly and also walk on the ground, and that rats can't fly but can walk on the ground.  It's not telling us much about how to tell eagles and rats apart when you encounter them walking on the ground.

Students need more help than this in recognising the different sorts of dare when they meet them.

I've suggested that the most obvious identifying characteristic is that the modal dare is followed by the bare infinitive and the lexical dare by the to-infinitive.

You've not suggested an alternative to this, or denounced it - which is what I'd rather hoped for - so I leave our readers with that suggestion, for the time being.


----------



## billj

Thomas Tompion said:


> The problem is that you have said that the lexical dare can be presented in certain grammatical forms which are closed to the modal dare.  This is like saying that eagles can fly and also walk on the ground, and that rats can't fly but can walk on the ground.  It's not telling us much about how to tell eagles and rats apart when you encounter them walking on the ground.
> 
> Students need more help than this in recognising the different sorts of dare when they meet them.
> 
> I've suggested that the most obvious identifying characteristic is that the modal dare is followed by the bare infinitive and the lexical dare by the to-infinitive.
> 
> You've not suggested an alternative to this, or denounced it - which is what I'd rather hoped for - so I leave our readers with that suggestion, for the time being.



I never asserted that lexical "dare" takes only _to-_infinitival complements, but only that auxiliary "dare" takes bare infinitival ones. I gave two examples in #9 which showed a clear contrast between the two forms, with lexical "dare" having a _to-_infinitival complement, as it prototypically does.

The crucial differences are that unlike auxiliary "dare", lexical "dare" requires _do_-support in non-affirmative contexts; it has primary and secondary forms; it is not absolutely restricted to non-affirmative complements.  These differences should enable the learner to easily distinguish the two forms.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

billj said:


> [...]
> The crucial differences are that unlike auxiliary "dare", lexical "dare" requires _do_-support in non-affirmative contexts; it has primary and secondary forms; it is not absolutely restricted to non-affirmative complements. These differences should enable the learner to easily distinguish the two forms.


You haven't taken my point about eagles and rats.

Your definition explains how you think the different sorts of dare behave syntactically.

Take for instance the two sentences:

1.  He didn't dare speak to me.
2.  He didn't dare to speak to me.

Are the dare's modal or lexical in each case?  Your account of the differences can't answer that question though you say 'the learner can easily distinguish the two forms'.

"Unlike the auxiliary dare, the lexical dare requires do-support in non-affirmative contexts" - Suppose we encounter what you call a "non-affirmative context" and the sentence contains an auxiliary do.  We know that this is required for the lexical dare, but is not required (but possible, we infer) for the modal dare.  This doesn't make the presence of do-support a defining characteristic: it's just something required in the one case but optional in the other.

How do I tell your brother Charlie from your brother Edward?
You can easily distinguish because Edward always has porridge for breakfast.
But Charlie sometimes has porridge for breakfast too, so distinguishing is not as easy as you suggest.

My definition tells us that 1. contains a modal dare, and 2. a lexical dare.


----------



## lingobingo

This is my take on it (without the benefit of reading the above debate):

The verb *dare* – seen as a semi-modal verb, like *need* – means to be brave (or impudent or foolhardy) enough to do something. With an indirect object, it means to challenge someone else to do something. As well as being used in the normal way (as a “lexical” verb), it’s often used as a modal verb.

As a modal:
• Like the standard modal verbs can/could, will/would, shall/should, may/might, it has two forms (*dare* / *dared*) which remain the same in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd person, even in the singular.
• Like all modal verbs (inc. “ought to”), it is used only with the bare infinitive. 
• It does not need an auxiliary in order to form negatives and questions: He dare not look / Dare he look?
• The use of *dare* in a past-tense sense (i.e. to mean “dared”) is not standard in modern English. Fowler says: “Formerly condemned (by the 1894 _OED_ among others) as ‘careless’, it is now only literary or dated.”

As a lexical verb:
• *Dare* can be followed by either a bare infinitive or a to-infinitive. 
• Whenever you see *dare* either with an added “s” in the 3rd person or followed by a to-infinitive, it’s being used lexically. 
• Most grammar sources state that lexical *dare* uses the auxiliary “do” to form negatives and questions: He does not dare [to] look / Does he dare [to] look? Nevertheless, “dares not” is quite common (and not only where it’s not “dare” that’s negative but the infinitive it relates to, as in She dares {not to obey} = She dares to disobey).


----------



## Forero

Thomas Tompion said:


> ...
> 1.  He didn't dare speak to me.
> 2.  He didn't dare to speak to me.
> ...
> My definition tells us that 1. contains a modal dare, and 2. a lexical dare.


That is my definition too. And these two sentences mean different things.

Modal _dare_, unlike other modals, can be used in bare infinitive form, which makes "didn't dare speak" and "wouldn't dare speak" possible.

"Hadn't dared speak" is also possible, so modal _dare_ also has a regular past participle.





lingobingo said:


> How dare she talk to me like that?
> How dared she talk to me like that?
> How dare she talk yesterday?
> 
> Still, I like Charles — I respect him — I pity him, poor murdered king! Yes, his enemies were the worst: they shed blood they had no right to shed. How dared they kill him!" (Charlotte Brontë, _Jane Eyre_, 1847)​


I agree that modal _dare_ can also be used in past tense, and that the past tense is not "dare".

The usual past tense is "dared", but I have heard "durst" too:

_How durst she talk to me like that?
How durst she have talked to be like that?_

But I don't think I have ever heard "daren't", "daredn't" or "durstn't".

_Dare not she look?
Daren't she look?_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Thank you very much, Lingobingo.

In the sentences below, _*dares*_ is in bold twice, and each time it is followed by the bare infinitive. The fact that it is inflected in the third person (dares, not dare) means that, for you, we are dealing with the lexical form, because you say that the modal dare does not inflect in the third person.

_3.  Every time one of us *dares* contribute to the debate, she tells us with thriftiness of spirit and consonants of flint that we have no common sense._ So very English: a Serpent's Tail compilation. London: Serpent's Tail, 1990 

_4.  If anyone had dared tell me the like two months ago, I would have scouted him as mad or drunk. (64-) Let me hear now whether anyone *dares* call him profligate. _The English infinitive. Duffley, Patrick J. Harlow: Longman Group UK Ltd, 1992 

Suppose the same sentences had been in the second person:

_5.  Every time you dare contribute to the debate.
6.  Let me hear now whether you dare call him profligate_*.*

I'm interested to know what you think about sentences 5 & 6.

Am I right in thinking that you'd hold that we are still dealing with the lexical dare in both cases?  After all it seems odd to change as we conjugate.

Do they both sound as happy to you in the second person?  I'm tempted to use the to-infinitive in 5., for instance.

Had you been presented with sentences 5. and 6. without previously encountering 3. & 4., would you have been able to say if you were dealing with lexical or modal dares in each case?


----------



## lingobingo

Forero said:


> Modal _dare_, unlike other modals, can be used in bare infinitive form, which makes "didn't dare speak" and "wouldn't dare speak" possible.


I don’t get this. Both *dare* and *need* are classified as semi-modal, which means they’re not always used that way. So surely, when acting as an infinitive, they’re not modal. Modals don’t have an infinitive of any kind – with or without “to”.


----------



## Forero

lingobingo said:


> I don’t get this. Both *dare* and *need* are classified as semi-modal, which means they’re not always used that way. So surely, when acting as an infinitive, they’re not modal. Modals don’t have an infinitive of any kind – with or without “to”.


How do you explain "didn't dare speak" and "wouldn't dare speak" when adding "to" would change the meaning?


----------



## billj

lingobingo said:


> This is my take on it (without the benefit of reading the above debate):
> 
> The verb *dare* – seen as a semi-modal verb, like *need* – means to be brave (or impudent or foolhardy) enough to do something. With an indirect object, it means to challenge someone else to do something. As well as being used in the normal way (as a “lexical” verb), it’s often used as a modal verb.
> As a modal:
> • Like all modal verbs, it has two forms (*dare* and *dared*) which remain the same in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd person, whether singular or plural.


Auxiliary "dare" has only a present tense form. "Dared" is the preterite / past participle form of lexical "dare".



lingobingo said:


> As a lexical verb:
> • *Dare* can be followed by either a bare infinitive or a to-infinitive.


Protototypically a _to_-infinitival, but some speakers it seems use a bare one.
• Whenever you see *dare* either with an added “s” in the 3rd person or followed by a to-infinitive, it’s being used lexically. 


lingobingo said:


> Most grammar sources state that lexical *dare* uses the auxiliary “do” to form negatives and questions: He does not dare [to] look / Does he dare [to] look? Nevertheless, “dares not” is quite common (and not only where it’s not “dare” that’s negative but the infinitive it relates to, as in She dares {not to obey} = She dares to disobey).



Lexical "dare" does need so-support in negative contexts.

"Dares not" is the auxiliary use of "dare".


----------



## lingobingo

Thomas Tompion said:


> _5.  Every time you dare contribute to the debate.
> 6.  Let me hear now whether you dare call him profligate_*.*
> 
> I'm interested to know what you think about sentences 5 & 6.


If, for some reason, I needed to make that distinction, I would apply my rule of thumb about it being lexical if it has an “s” in the third person. So I would refer it back to a similar version:

_5.  Every time you dare contribute to the debate.
5.  Every time he dares contribute to the debate.  — therefore lexical

6.  Let me hear now whether you dare call him profligate_*.*
_6.  Let me hear now whether he dare call him profligate.  — modal 
6.  Let me hear now whether he dares call him profligate.  — lexical_

In the originally longer version of my post, I did remark that sometimes the same thing can be expressed both ways.


----------



## billj

lingobingo said:


> I don’t get this. Both *dare* and *need* are classified as semi-modal, which means they’re not always used that way. So surely, when acting as an infinitive, they’re not modal. Modals don’t have an infinitive of any kind – with or without “to”.



Yes, only lexical "dare" has a plain form, as in "I didn't dare to go out alone"


----------



## lingobingo

billj said:


> Auxiliary "dare" has only a present tense form. "Dared" is the preterite form of lexical "dare".


Maybe the trouble is that there are so many conflicting ways of defining things in grammar and linguistics?

On this point, Fowler appears to disagree with you. It gives, specifically as an example of the modal use of *dare*:

No one dared defy the group by going out at the last moment—Ian McEwan, 1986.​


----------



## billj

Thomas Tompion said:


> Your definition explains how you think the different sorts of dare behave syntactically.
> 
> Take for instance the two sentences:
> 
> 1.  He didn't dare speak to me.
> 2.  He didn't dare to speak to me.
> 
> Are the dare's modal or lexical in each case?  Your account of the differences can't answer that question though you say 'the learner can easily distinguish the two forms'.



Obviously lexical, since they contain _do_-support. You continually harp on about the "to" marker, which I've already explained about. Again, lexical "dare" prototypically takes _to_-infinitivals complements. I see from some of the comments here that some speakers use a bare infinitival with lexical "dare", but for them the presence of a bare infinitival does not prove that it's lexical "dare", since auxiliary "dare" also takes (only) bare infinitivals. The other tests that I carefully explained to you are the crucial ones.




Thomas Tompion said:


> "Unlike the auxiliary dare, the lexical dare requires do-support in non-affirmative contexts" - Suppose we encounter what you call a "non-affirmative context" and the sentence contains an auxiliary do.  We know that this is required for the lexical dare, but is not required (but possible, we infer) for the modal dare.  This doesn't make the presence of do-support a defining characteristic: it's just something required in the one case but optional in the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No; _do_-support is *not* possible with auxiliary "dare". This is one of its crucial identifying features.   If auxiliary "do" is present, that proves that it's lexical "dare".
> 
> 
> Thomas Tompion said:
> 
> 
> 
> My definition tells us that 1. contains a modal dare, and 2. a lexical dare.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, your definition fails, then. "Aux "dare" does *not* take _do_-support under any circumstances. Both your examples contain _do_-support and hence "dare" must be lexical. The fact that some speakers seem to use bare infinitival complements with lexical "dare" is irrelevant. As I've tried to explain to you, the "to" marker is not important with lexical "dare", but the other tests are conclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## lingobingo

Forero said:


> How do you explain "didn't dare speak" and "wouldn't dare speak" when adding "to" would change the meaning?


How does making it *to* *speak* change the meaning of either of them?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

lingobingo said:


> How does making it *to* *speak* change the meaning of either of them?


I agree with Forero that it does change the meaning - that's to say there are cases where I'd prefer the one over the other, and vice versa.

The abruptness of the bare infinitive makes the silence more dramatic and the fear more evident.  _I didn't dare to speak sounds_ altogether more considered, less spontaneous.

This difference in the applicability of the two sentences amounts to a semantic difference, in my view.



lingobingo said:


> If, for some reason, I needed to make that distinction, I would apply my rule of thumb about it being lexical if it has an “s” in the third person. So I would refer it back to a similar version:[...]


Thanks for replying to my earlier post.

So your way of distinguishing between the lexical and the modal in the present is to imagine the form taken in the third person singular.  What do you do in the past where there is no inflection?

7.  I no longer dared talk to trees. 
8.  Christmas was better than I dared expect.

Lexical or modal?

Tiny point: the same numbers in a thread are often a source of confusion. Having the same number twice referring to different sentences in the same post seems rash.


----------



## billj

lingobingo said:


> How does making it *to* *speak* change the meaning of either of them?



It doesn't make any semantic difference at all. Some speakers prefer to omit "to" with lexical "dare" in non-affirmative contexts, but in affirmative ones "to" is much preferred. It's just a minor syntactic idiosyncrasy.


----------



## Forero

lingobingo said:


> How does making it *to* *speak* change the meaning of either of them?


"He didn't dare to speak to me" means just that he did not summon enough courage or effrontery to speak to me.
"He didn't dare speak to me" means he did not even consider speaking to me, that in effect he could not since, in his mind at least, speaking to me would endanger him in some way. He knew better than to speak to me.

The difference is slight but real, like the difference between "doesn't need to" and "need not" or between "is not able to" and "cannot".


----------



## Loob

vladv said:


> Could a native speaker explain how one can use the verb "dare" in its modal incarnation (though rare it is) when talking about the past? How dare she talk to me like that? (now) How dared she talk like that (yesterday)? Or should I use only the basic form "dare" in both cases (even when talking about the past) How dare she talk yesterday?


Looking back at the original question, vladv, I think the answer is
_How dared she talk to me like that?*_

I'd say that is a legitimate sentence, though it's not one I'd be likely to produce. I'm not sure what I'd say instead: probably something like _How did she have the nerve to talk to me like that?

......

* as in posts 6 and 7._


----------



## PaulQ

lingobingo said:


> As a lexical verb:
> • *Dare* can be followed by either a bare infinitive or a to-infinitive.
> • Whenever you see *dare* either with an added “s” in the 3rd person or followed by a to-infinitive, it’s being used lexically.


... unless it is the subjunctive or the person speaking or writing is unaware of this distinction. The latter is something that is increasingly common and may be approaching "normality."

The main difficulty in all of this is trying the Procrustean approach of fitting "[to] dare" into an existing category.

For the most part, modal verbs, in English, have a strange and individual histories, usually involving a beginning as a "full verb" and misunderstandings of tense and use. The historical view gives some insight into the current irregularities.


----------



## billj

PaulQ said:


> ... unless it is the subjunctive.



I don't see how "dare" can be used in a subjunctive construction other than with lexical "dare". Only lexical "dare"has a plain form verb. lingobingo omitted to include that as one of its distinguishing features.


----------



## PaulQ

billj said:


> I don't see how "dare" can be used in a subjunctive construction other than with lexical "dare". Auxiliary "dare" doesn't have a plain form verb.


I don't think that matters - and I'm not sure that it is not possible to have a modal in the subjunctive - it was intended as an instance of the lack of the inflection.

[Response to deleted content removed.  DonnyB - moderator]


----------



## billj

PaulQ said:


> I don't think that matters - and I'm not sure that it is not possible to have a modal in the subjunctive - it was intended as an instance of the lack of the inflection.



It matters in that it's a syntactic impossibility for auxiliary "dare" to occur in a subjunctive construction. Modal auxiliaries simply don't have a plain form, only a present tense one. Thus in, for example, the subjunctive "It's vital that he dare tell her", "dare" can only be lexical.


----------



## PaulQ

billj said:


> _*I daren't tell anyone*_*. [modal aux usage]*
> _I didn't dare to tell anyone_. [lexical usage]





billj said:


> Thus in, for example, the subjunctive *"It's vital that he dare tell her", *"dare" can only be lexical.


This would leave us with _*"It's vital that he daren't tell anyone*_*." [modal aux usage]*
Nevertheless, it *really *does not matter. I say that as I said


PaulQ said:


> *it was intended as an instance of the lack of the inflection.*


----------



## billj

PaulQ said:


> This would leave us with _*"It's vital that he daren't tell anyone*_*." [modal aux usage]*
> Nevertheless, it *really *does not matter. I say that as I said


That would be lexical "dare", since aux "dare" does not have a plain form. And there's negation on the primary verb pointing to it being aux "dare".


----------



## PaulQ

billj said:


> That is lexical "dare", as evident from the _do_-support.


It only there if you put it there...


----------



## PaulQ

Modal verbs, in current Modern English, are distinguished by
(i)                  Being unable to accept the “to infinitive” -> I can/must/will, etc. *see* it
(ii)                Having no infinitive
(iii)              Not accepting “do” in the interrogative -> Can/must/will, etc. I see it?
(iv)              Having no tense. “I musted see it or I had/have/will must see it.”
(v)                Not being inflected in the third person.
(vi)              Making no sense without another verb but with an object -> “I will your death”; “I can English”; “I must the work.”
These verbs are, more or less, verbal modifiers.

If you test “dare”, in any context, against the above conditions, it fails on all - with the possibility of a ½ point for (i).


----------



## billj

PaulQ said:


> Modal verbs, in current Modern English, are distinguished by
> (i)                  Being unable to accept the “to infinitive” -> I can/must/will, etc. *see* it
> (ii)                Having no infinitive
> (iii)              Not accepting “do” in the interrogative -> Can/must/will, etc. I see it?
> (iv)              Having no tense. “I musted see it or I had/have/will must see it.”
> (v)                Not being inflected in the third person.
> (vi)              Making no sense without another verb but with an object -> “I will your death”; “I can English”; “I must the work.”
> These verbs are, more or less, verbal modifiers.
> 
> If you test “dare”, in any context, against the above conditions, it fails on all - with the possibility of a ½ point for (i).



Aux modal "dare" passes (iii). Like the other modals, it does not require _do_-support in negatives (_She needn't go_).

And it passes (vi) too, since it can be stranded. Consider: _The sensible thing to do would be to ask my father, but I wouldn't dare._

To summarise, modal "dare" has only primary forms, no agreement, only bare infinitival complement, subject-auxiliary inversion, stranding (see above), and a negative form "daren't". Thus it has virtually all the auxiliary and modal properties.


----------



## PaulQ

To my mind "to dare" is a mess of a verb - neither fish nor fowl - attempting to classify it in terms of established grammars will end in tears. Yes, it is possible to write a paper on it as a modal, an auxiliary1, or a lexical but nobody will act upon the guidance. And we have not yet arrived at the
can/could
may/might
dare/...
position yet, let alone explained the optional "to". The idea of "to" making "dare" lexical - but indistinguishable from the modal in meaning - seems tempting, but only in the case of wishing to justify a duality.

I suggest dare is "sui generis", or as the OED says: *"Etymology: *One of the interesting group of Germanic preterite-present verbs, of which the extant present is an original preterite tense."

The note then follows:


> The original 3rd singular present _he dare_, and past tense _durst_, remained undisturbed to the modern period, in which the transitive senses (B. II.) were developed; but early in the 16th cent. the new forms _dares_, _dared_, appeared in the south, and are always used in the transitive senses, and now also in the intransitive sense when followed by _to_. In the original construction, followed by the infinitive without _to_, _dare_, _durst_ are still in common use (especially in the negative ‘he dare not’, ‘he durst not’); and most writers prefer ‘he dare go’, or ‘he dares to go’, to ‘he dares go ’. The northern dialects generally retain ‘he dare, he durst’, and writers of northern extraction favour their retention in literary English when followed by the simple infinitive without _to_.


and not a hint of a modal.



vladv said:


> Could a native speaker explain how one can use the verb "dare" in its modal incarnation (though rare it is) when talking about the past?


I don't think there is a modal incarnation.

1My money's on this one... but only a small amount.


----------



## Ivan_I

Well, I have analyzed the examples in this thread and I see that all these can refer to the past. (the modal dare is implied)

_*1a) How did she dare talk to me like that?*_
*2a) How dared she talk to me like that?
3a) How dare she talk to me like that?*

Do you agree that all three are modals referring to the past? (I have some reservations about 3a)

However, why did some contributors mark these as wrong?

*1b) How dared you speak to me like that the other day! WRONG 
2b) How dare she talk yesterday? WRONG *

_*If 2a is correct why is 1b not?
If 3a is correct why is 2b not?*_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Ivan_I said:


> Do you agree that all three are modals referring to the past? (I have some reservations about 3a)


I'm not surprised at the reservations: 3a is clearly talking about the present.


Ivan_I said:


> However, why did some contributors mark these as wrong?
> 
> *1b) How dared you speak to me like that the other day! WRONG
> 2b) How dare she talk yesterday? WRONG *


You really mustn't ask us to explain the views expressed by others.


Ivan_I said:


> If 2a is correct why is 1b not?


For me 1b is clumsier than 2a.


Ivan_I said:


> If 3a is correct why is 2b not?


2b might be seen as incorrect because *talk* seems to need an indirect object there.


----------



## Uncle Jack

I very much like Paul's post #62 that "dare" is a mess, and these examples exemplify it.

You cannot call "dare" in (1a) a modal verb, since it appears with an auxiliary "do", regardless of the absence of "to" before "talk" (adding "to" would not be wrong, and would be preferred by many speakers).

(3a) is certainly referring to something she said in the past, but I think it refers to an ongoing attitude that she has, rather than her attitude at that particular moment. However, this is rather a tentative suggestion; it might instead be timeless.

(2a) and (3a) are expressing indignation about a third person. This is fine, but expressing indignation directly to the perpetrator some time after the event requires a different form of words ("How could you have spoken to me like that the other day", for example). Instead of expressing indignation, it seems that in (1b) you are enquiring what gave the other person the confidence to speak like that, but this would require "How did you dare...?" Falling between these two meanings, (1b) appears to be impossible to interpret correctly.

(2b) has a different problem. It appears to be expressing indignation, but there is nothing to be indignant about, that I can see. You are not saying in what way she talked, or to whom.


----------



## Ivan_I

*TT, thank you! It's getting clearer.
1*
Let me put it straight. I gather that DARE, when in the main clause, doesn't refer to the past:

*How dare she talk to me like that?*  - _PRESENT_

BUT if it's in subordinate clause it can refer to the past
*I asked her if she dare catch the mouse. - *_PAST_

_*Is that so?*_


----------



## Ivan_I

billj said:


> The "to" marker is irrelevant to the status of lexical "dare"...


I wonder whether it's *billj's* personal opinion or a, more or less, well-known grammarian's opinion. I have never read about the unimportance of the "to" marker pertaining to the dare-issue and I would be very excited to read about this point in an authoritative grammar source.


----------



## PaulQ

Ivan_I said:


> *How dare she talk to me like that?* - _PRESENT_
> 
> BUT if it's in subordinate clause it can refer to the past
> *I asked her if she dare catch the mouse. - *_PAST_


Yes, that is the case..


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Ivan_I said:


> BUT if it's in subordinate clause it can refer to the past
> *I asked her if she dare catch the mouse. - *_PAST_


Two points:

1.  I'd say 'I asked her if she dared catch the mouse'.
2.  'I asked her' is in the past, and the default tense is the past.

In the sentence 'I asked her if she was American', does the 'was' refer to the past or the present?  I'd say it could refer to either.


----------



## Forero

Ivan_I said:


> *TT, thank you! It's getting clearer.
> 1*
> Let me put it straight. I gather that DARE, when in the main clause, doesn't refer to the past:
> 
> *How dare she talk to me like that?*  - _PRESENT_
> 
> BUT if it's in subordinate clause it can refer to the past
> *I asked her if she dare catch the mouse. - *_PAST_
> 
> _*Is that so?*_


Both sentences seem to be about the present. For the past, use "dared" or "durst", not "dare".

_I thought we must hurry or we were going to miss the bus._ [_Must_ has no other past tense form, so I think this works.]
_I didn't think we dare waste time since the bus was due to arrive within 5 minutes._ [The regular past tense _dare*d*_ exists, and so does _durst_, so _dare_ sounds wrong here because (to me) it has to be present tense.]


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

As an AE speaker, I know and understand "durst", but wouldn't use it in everyday speech, as at least some of my interlocuters might wonder what I meant.


----------



## lingobingo

I would imagine *durst* fell out of use at _least_ a century ago!


----------



## Dictatortot

I don't want to correct textbook writers, but I'd suggest that "dare" isn't a modal or even semi-modal verb: it's a regular verb in the subjunctive mood. As a figure of speech, it's likely a survival from early modern English when sentences like "How suppose he that..." were still idiomatic.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Re #70: Since (in my opinion) we can replace "didn't dare dare waste time" could be replace by "couldn't risk wasting time", I see nothing modal there.


----------

