---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
This is Johanna's response, which I read after my last post.
   I will say in passing (you may want to read her post before you read
these responsive comments) that I don't think "shall" and 'should" are
a different mood. One expresses certainty, the other obligation.  Both
are judgements on the speaker's part. I would also include be able to,
be supposed to, and so on as parapharastic modals, ways of doubling up
on modal notions or combining modal notions with tense. I can't come up
with a past time notion for "He should go"; even "He should have gone"
just adds aspect. But "He was supposed to go" allows that to happen.
"He should be able to" is like saying "should can". It may be a
different form, but it carries out the same function (allowing us to
assess ability in combination with likelihood or obligation.)
   When we disagree about this stuff, it's usually about classification.
It's not straight out disagreement about what we are describing, but
disagreement about the terminology we are using and the definitions of
our terms. My ultimate goal is to use these resources flexibly, so I
tend to start with function. It is certainly not the whole truth, but I
would like to think it is a useful perspective.

Craig




Subject: Re: Question about modal verbs --please post?
From:    "Johanna Rubba" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:    Thu, March 30, 2006 6:01 pm
To:      "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Craig wrote,

  " If I say "Bob should be able to answer your question" or "Bob shall
be
able to answer your question", I have not changed tense in the usual
sense of the word, though thinking of these as tensed would lead us to
believe that one is past and the other present."

This is conflating tense and time again. Both statements are taken to
be true at the present moment; the difference is _mood_: "Shall" is
indicative, and "should" is ... I'm not sure whether I should call this
subjunctive or something else. In any case, "should" in this sentence
has it's epistemic, not deontic, meaning. It expresses the assumption
or belief of the speaker about what is likely to be true, whereas
"shall" is an assertion that the proposition "Bob be able to answer
your question" is true.

To me, "can be able to" is not possible. In non-double-modal dialects,
we don't get double modals (meaning modals from the standard list). "Be
able to", "have to", and so on aren't classified as modals. "Be" and
"have" behave as main verbs in these expressions. They appear in the
expected forms in various positions:

1) I have been able to read music for a long time.
2) I won't be able to do it.
3) Do I have to make supper?
4) You had to do it, didn't you?

This is why expressions like "should be able to" are possible while
"should can" is not.

As for all the talk about tense marking and such, I go with Herb: These
are old preterites which have never been regularized; they're fossils.
The fact that they are used to express special categories like mood and
  epistemics might isolate them from other auxiliary and main verbs, and
make it easier for them to maintain special marking.

Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/