Scott,

Terms like "modal" and "quasi-modal" or "semi-modal" suggest categorial distinctions that I've already expressed qualms about.  Since I'm at least partly a historical linguist, I prefer thinking in terms of grammaticalization.  This is a process that's been getting quite a lot of attention in the field for about thirty years now.  Typically a content word begins to generalize or perhaps bleach semantically, like "come" or "go" forms in lots of languages that come to be used to mark future or "have" forms that come to mark perfect.  Both Germanic and Romance exhibit these.  The core modals in English are a prime example, starting out as full verbs in Old English, usually preterit presents, and then shedding more and more lexical content to become grammatical markers.  As these grammaticalization processes take place, words commonly also change phonologically.  OE "lic," which meant "body," has grammaticalized to PDE "like" and "-ly."

I think "have to" and "want to" are early in the grammaticalization process.  The semi-modal forms "hafta" or "hasta" show devoicing that "have taken" and "has taken" don't show.  However, that devoicing doesn't yet occur in the past, where "had to" doesn't become "haDa."  The full contraction of "want to" to "wanna" occurs only if the subject of the infinitive and the subject of "want" are the same.  We say, "When do you wanna go?" but not "Whom do you wanna go?"  The latter has to have a full double /t/:  "Whom do you want t@ go?"  The fact that these expressions have started grammaticalizing doesn't tell us where they'll end up or if they'll end up in the same place.  Maybe "hafta," etc. will become increasingly modal-like, but it appears to be following a different diachronic trajectory from "ought" and "need."  I don't bet on horses and I don't predict linguistic change.

Herb

Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN  47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: September 7, 2010 1:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: have + infinitive

Dear List,

Is it reasonable to think of "have + infinitive" as a modal construction with the infinitive being the verb of the sentence?

<I have to go> <I have to eat> <I ought to go> < I ought to eat> <I must go> <I must eat> all seem like very similar ways of saying the same thing.

Thanks,
Scott Woods

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/

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/