Gary,

Thank you very much for your response.  Much of what you say I find myself very much in harmony with.  My difficulty was my insistence on using the word _tense_ in a non-standard way!  I apologize.  

The part of the meaning of _tense_ that I have focused on is "a set of inflectional forms in a verb."  The parts of the auxiliary as they relate to the main verb are not inflectional.  We have only two simple inflections of a verb - - I think the other forms are derivational forms.  There are two historically related forms of the modal, but they are time related in only one (minor) use - - reported speech.  

The part of the definition of _tense_ that I ignored is its reference to time.  There are at least six ways to use an auxiliary to show future time, but there is no such inflectional form.  English has no _future tense_ only present and past, and these times are also expressible in many different ways in the auxiliary.  Maybe one could call these two forms of the modal _historical tense_.  In non-reported speech contexts we might focus on the contrast between _will_ and _would_ and _can_ and _could_, for these modals, but this would miss the contrasts between _shall_ and _should_, and _may_ and _might_.  The modern _must_ is defective as is also the auxiliary use of _used to_.  

Thank you again for your serious consideration and help.

Bruce

>>> [log in to unmask] 11/08/01 09:46AM >>>
     Does it really make sense to speak of tense with a modal?  Aren't
most modals invariant?  Doesn't tense require a change of form?
     We must have been there is simply modal perfect.  
<<<this sequence to me has simple past time reference.  Its relevance to the present must be to the present reference of _must_.  This _must_ is interpreted subjectively - - a judgement of the certainty with which the speaker is able to make the assertion.  >>>

If must is past
tense, then what do we do with must be there?  

<<< this is present reference clear through. >>>

The difference between
them is not tense, but aspect. Since perfect aspect gives a sense of
completion, it will seem like past tense, but that is true in all
present perfect verb phrases (like She has eaten.)

<<<I disagree.  The perfect use of _have_ does not seem to be present after the modal. >>> 

     Perhaps historically would was past tense of will, but they seem to
me very independent at this juncture in time.  I would if I could but I
can't so I won't.  Surely all of these have reference to present or
future time.  The difference between I would go and I will go is
attitude about the conditions under which it will happen as opposed to
the certainty of it happening.  To think of one as the past tense
version of the other would be terribly misleading.

<<<I agree.  Calling the form of the modal _past_ was motivated by its historical origin.  Maybe we could call it a _secondary_ form. >>>

     Can we think of used to as past tense if there is no use to?

<<<I think so, if we call it _defective_.>>>

     The auxiliaries in question are finite auxiliaries, the auxiliaries
which make the verb phrase a finite verb phrase (and an arguable
proposition) by grounding the statement in modality and/or tense.  By
modality, I think we should understand the attitude of the speaker as
being expressed.  It is generally a present tense attitude even if
toward past or future time.

<<<This is my intent on using the term _subjective_.  There is a certain subjective element in the meaning of some of the modals, even when they are not modifying the judgement of the certainty of an assertion.  The use of the word _finite_ in the case of the modals can be as misleading as my non-standard use of the word _tense_.  >>>

     She has been equals present perfect.
     She might have been adds the notion of uncertainty. It is a
statement about the possibility of it having happened.  The idea would
be that in the present moment of my speaking, I believe it is possible
that she has been.  She should have been adds attitudes about
desirability or obligation.
     We can say she had been, (past plus perfect),  and might have been
(modal perfect) but there is no equivalent for She might had been (modal
plus past plus perfect) or even might has been (modal plus present plus
perfect.)

<<<You note about the _finite_ feature of the modals would explain this.>>>

     We do have periphrastic forms that allow us to combine modality
with tense  and also allow us to compound modality, but generally
speaking the finite role happens only once in a verb phrase.  The finite
auxiliary is also the auxiliary that moves to the front of the clause
when we turn it from statement into question.  She will go equals
statement.  Will she go equals question.  The mood element (grammatical
subject plus finite verb) is at the heart of what makes a sentence a
sentence in traditional grammar, a much better way of talking about it
than the grossly misleading complete thought.

<<<I suppose by mood (in reference to syntax) you would include imperative, negative, and interrogative adjustments?>>>

     There may be competing ways to analyze this, but this is the one
that makes the most sense to me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW.  If you are not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this message in error or there are any problems, please notify the sender immediately.  Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any affiliated entity is liable for direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on.

==============================================================================

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/