Modal

Question

In the phrase "Charity is a good thing to be involved in", is 'be' a modal? If not, can you explain so I'll know what to look for in the future.thanks...charlie

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]In the phrase "Charity is a good thing to be involved in", is 'be' a modal? If not, can you explain so I'll know what to look for in the future. thanks...charlie[/nq]
My first thought was, "It's an infinitive," to be, like:

a good thing to know
a good thing to find
a good thing to have
But then I realized that probably you are asking about "to be involved." That's the passive form, like:
I am involved.
I was involved.
I will be involved.
I never heard anyone call the forms of "to be" and "to have" that are used to conjugate verbs "modals," although there may be some systems that do so. To me, and to Merriam-Webster, modals are things like can, must, and may. I would call those various forms of "to be' and "to have" auxiliaries or even "helping verbs."

Best wishes Donna Richoux

Usenet · Answer

Yes - the references I have equate modals and helping verbs.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Yes - the references I have equate modals and helping verbs.[/nq]
They shouldn't. The most distinguishing thing about a modal is that it doesn't have an infinitive (there's no "to can go" or "to must go"). Auxiliary (or helping) verbs, in English, can appear in the infinitive: "to be going", "to have gone".
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Yes - the references I have equate modals and helping verbs.[/nq]
[nq:1]They shouldn't. The most distinguishing thing about a modal is that it doesn't have an infinitive (there's no "to can go" or "to must go"). Auxiliary (or helping) verbs, in English, can appear in the infinitive: "to be going", "to have gone".[/nq]
I've never read a definition of a modal verb, but I thought it had more to do with them not taking a 'to' with the following infinitive, eg I would count 'dare' as a modal, at least in some of its uses.

Rob Bannister

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]They shouldn't. The most distinguishing thing about a modal is ... appear in the infinitive: "to be going", "to have gone".[/nq]
[nq:1]I've never read a definition of a modal verb, but I thought it had more to do with them not taking a 'to' with the following infinitive, eg I would count 'dare' as a modal, at least in some of its uses.[/nq]
Mm, interesting point, even though it can have an infinitive in that use: "He wouldn't dare go." I think this is what the term "quasi-modal" is for: English has a whole bunch of elements that behave like modals in some respects (e.g., taking a bare infinitive) but not in others (e.g., having an infinitive; taking "-s" in the third person). "Dare" seems to be one of them, at least some of the time. "Ought" is another; it disagrees with "dare" both on not having an infinitive and on taking "to".

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I've never read a definition of a modal verb, but ... as a modal, at least in some of its uses.[/nq]
[nq:1]Mm, interesting point, even though it can have an infinitive in that use: "He wouldn't dare go." I think this ... of the time. "Ought" is another; it disagrees with "dare" both on not having an infinitive and on taking "to".[/nq]
This sent me chasing to the dictionary - all the main modals (can, may, must, will, shall) have cognates in German, so what, I wondered was the etymology of 'ought'? It turns out that its infinitive is, in fact, 'own', or perhaps I ought to have said 'was its infinitive'. With the German verbs, it is thought that the forms 'kann, mag, muss, will, soll' are signs that the verbs are back formations from a past tense, which in German have no endings in the 1st and 3rd persons. Whether this is the case in English or not, I am not qualified to judge.

Rob Bannister

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I've never read a definition of a modal verb, but ... as a modal, at least in some of its uses.[/nq]
[nq:1]Mm, interesting point, even though it can have an infinitive in that use: "He wouldn't dare go." I think this is what the term "quasi-modal" is for:[/nq]
Esmerelda! The bells, the bells!

Larry Lard
Replies to group please

Usenet · Answer

Charlie, I'm sorry to have to say that the references you have are worthless. Don't trust them any longer. That's an unnecessary error that betrays total ignorance about English grammar.

Not the most distinguishing thing, but certainly one of them. The modal auxiliary verbs are defective and don't inflect, not even the -Zero of the infinitive; they also require an infinitive complement as the next verb in the verb phrase. As a consequence they have to be the first auxiliary verb in the verb phrase. Their semantics is also distinguishing either Possible or Necessary, epistemic or deontic.
[nq:2]I've never read a definition of a modal verb, but ... as a modal, at least in some of its uses.[/nq]
Um, try my modals page: http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/modals.html
[nq:1]Mm, interesting point, even though it can have an infinitive in that use: "He wouldn't dare go." I think this ... of the time. "Ought" is another; it disagrees with "dare" both on not having an infinitive and on taking "to".[/nq]
Etymologically, "ought" is an old past participle (of "owe", which betrays the moral exchange metaphor that George Lakoff writes about in 'Moral Politics'); naturally it doesn't have an infinitive.

"Need" and "dare", used as modals (without Do-support and with To-less infinitives), are NPIs:
He need/dare *(not) answer the question.
They can also appear in the negative as regular complement-taking verbs, with Do-support and To-ful infinitives (though "dare" can optionally omit the "to"):
He doesn't need *(to) answer the question.
He doesn't dare (to) answer the question.
If you want to call them "quasi-modals", that's fine, but then what do you call the modal paraphrases like "be able to", "be allowed to", "ought to", "have to", or "be going to"? Not to mention "possible", "certain", "maybe", etc? Hazy lazy quasi-modals?
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler U Michigan Linguistics Dept "Thinking is more interesting than knowing, but less interesting than looking." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]If you want to call them "quasi-modals", that's fine, but then what do you call the modal paraphrases like "be able to", "be allowed to", "ought to", "have to", or "be going to"? Not to mention "possible", "certain", "maybe", etc? Hazy lazy quasi-modals?[/nq]
Hemi-demi-semi-modals?
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

Modal

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions