0
Just the truth Posted 21 years ago
Linguistics Studies

The tenseless modals verbs of English

JTT wrote:

Every modal verb in English can operate in past, present and future situations. Modals carry modal meaning into sentences, they do not carry tense.


CalifJim responded:
I think this needs a little more explanation. Can you give examples of modals, which do not carry tense, operating in past, present, and future situations?
I'd be particularly interested in the kind of constructions you envision which use "will" or "may" in the past, just to name a few, because I'm having trouble imagining the sort of thing you have in mind.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So here we are. I'll expand on this and provide examples shortly.

What might be easier and more instructive, Jim, is for you, or anyone, to provide some examples of 'might' as the past tense of 'may' or 'should' as the past tense of 'shall'.
  

Top answer

No, I think you misunderstand, JT. You made the claim that every modal verb can operate in past, present and future situations. Now you must defend it if you choose to do so -- without changing the subject -- as you frequently accuse others of doing - and which you have just done, as explained below -- and by providing scientific proof - as you frequently accuse others of lacking.

— CalifJim

  • No, I think you misunderstand, JT.
  • You made the claim that every modal verb can operate in past, present and future situations.
  • Now you must defend it if you choose to do so -- without changing the subject -- as you frequently accuse others of doing - and which you have just done, as explained below -- and by providing scientific proof - as you frequently accuse others of lacking.
  • My examples of "might" as the past tense of "may" would not be instructive in the slightest.
  • I have already declared myself in agreement with the idea that "might" as the past of "may" is simply the historical origin of the words (in previous posts).
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

82 Answers
0
No, I think you misunderstand, JT.
You made the claim that every modal verb can operate in past, present and future situations.
Now you must defend it if you choose to do so -- without changing the subject -- as you frequently accuse others of doing - and which you have just done, as explained below -- and by providing scientific proof - as you frequently accuse others of lacking.
0
0
Don't get your knickers in a twist, Jim.

I'll expand on this and provide examples shortly.

How much clearer could a sentence possibly be?

[just wanted to try out a few tricks] It worked !!!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&
0
0
Got it! I thought you meant something in the past with "plain 'may'", not "may have". I'm still wondering, though, if there's an example out there using "may" (not "may have") which works for the past. (Knickers adjusted and looking good.)

* * *

Oh, and what about this?

The interviewer asked if I might provide some samples of my work.

I don't thin
0
0
I know that some times we using 'might' instead 'may'; 'could' instead 'can' is merely the reason of polite. Nearely every grammar book tells me this. So, I think the question is that if you use 'might' denote the 'politely can', it won't denote 'past can'. You can't express two meanings in one form or it makes confusion.
0
0
Might we not apply JTT's method and say that the present tense is also tenseless? If I may steal some examples from Professor Bailey's document, which so many forums seem to cite these days:

1. 'Hamlet comes from Honolulu.' (past)
2. 'I declare these knickers officially untwisted.' (present)
3. 'Ophelia speaks at ten o'clock tonight.' (future)
4. 'This forum finds work fo
0
0
Many fictions mentioned a story in 23th century. It still uses the past tense and present tense. I think, the reason is that people concerned are not always the time, they pay more attention on the story, only the grammarian squeezed a time symbol in that word.
0
0
CJ: Got it! I thought you meant something in the past with "plain 'may'", not "may have". I'm still wondering, though, if there's an example out there using "may" (not "may have") which works for the past. (Knickers adjusted and looking good.)

JT: That's the thing about modals. With only a couple of exceptions, both the purported past tense modals and the purported present tense modals
0
0
Many fictions mentioned a story in 23th century ...

Might we not apply JTT's method ...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

JT: May, no, might I respectfully request that we stay on course for the time being? This issue is complex enough without bringing in other potentially related issues. I'm not trying to s
0
0
Now I am troubled, JT. As I see it, your method proves that the present tense of ordinary verbs is also tenseless.

If this is the case, we are no longer justified in treating modal verbs as exceptions. We may legitimately proceed with a discussion of the general rule.

MrP
0
0
I agree. It seems to lead to the idea that any form which can be used for more than just an indicator of time - and the present and past forms qualify for membership in this category - should be considered tenseless. So English doesn't have tense? Only modality?

Come to think of it, I recall reading something by Lyons some years ago that claimed tense was a modality.

Hmmm.
0

Related Questions