Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 3 Nov 2007 09:51:32 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Herb observes that in reported speech the historic past and non-past tense of modals shows up.
Herb's examples:
He will be here.
He says he will be here.
He said he would be here.
********
Given this question:
How do you analyze tense and modals?
I answer that modals have inherent tense, and it is unclear whether that tense is past or present (non-past) (except in the case of reported speech).
My reasoning is as follows. (1) and (2) mean approximately the same.
1) I can eat chocolate.
2) I am able to eat chocolate.
However, only "be able to" works with want.
3) *I want to can eat chocolate.
4) I want to be able to eat chocolate.
("Have to" and must have the same distinction.)
If modals have NO tense, then we have to have a special explanation for why (3) is ungrammatical. However, if modals have inherent tense, then it is straightforward why "can" is ungrammatical in a position where a verb must be without any tense.
In claiming that modals have inherent tense, we can also explain why modals never take the agreement-s: the agreement-s would be double-marking the modal for tense.
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
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/
|
|
|