Craig,

I appreciate your observation about my typo.  I hope that this post will
not require you to make an observation about my poor proofreading skills
that is not relevant to the point under discussion.

>   I see both 1a) and 1b) as ungrammatical, though I'm sure that was >
just a typing mistake on your part. "Want", of course, requires the > -s
inthe usual spots. It definitely carries tense.
***********
Please return to Jed's question:

  My question is this: are modal verbs finite (carrying grammatical
tense) even though they are not inflected or marked in any way to show
that tense? Do syntacticians (sp?) consider the tense to be there
(perhaps marked with some kind of abstract zero morpheme) even though we
can't see it? 

I have no idea how your last post answered Jed's question.

***********
I am puzzled by this observation:

    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. 
If I concentrate on the generating rules as you explain them, I might
give the misleading notion that I am choosing between time references
rather than choosing between attitudes.

I have no idea how anything I have proposed presents "the misleading
notion that the choice between these two examples leads to the
conclusion that one is past and one is future."

(Let us not consider here whether English has a "future" tense.)

Except for some very specific instance that both Herb and Johanna have
noted, English modals like could/can, would/will, might/may, etc. no
longer have a regular past/present tense difference.   

****************
The central modals in modern English have the same property that is
required for the first verb in any tensed clause English.  At this point
in our description, it is less important what to label it than it is to
determine whether this (abstract) property is part of all modals.  

I have read no counter description in your posts.

*******************
If you have taught ESL students then you have heard/read sentences like
1 and 2.

1) Bob cans drink beer.
2) Bob doesn't can drink beer.

The description I have proposed provides why an L2 learner might produce
1 and 2.  

I can appreciate that for some teachers sentences 1 and 2 are not very
important and any attempt to describe them is a waste of time.  Also,
some views of language aren't really concerned about the question why L2
learners might produce these sentences.

I have a concern to understand why L2 learners might produce 1 and 2, so
I have no way to understand what you now write:

   I have many ESL students and can appreciate the need for explaining
formal rules that most native speakers never consider.  I have found a
functional perspective more effective . . . 


Craig 

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/