Bob,
   I just think that saying "should", "must", and "might" carry tense is
difficult to explain.  Is it present tense? Past tense? How do you
explain it in such a way that a language learner can see that it is
different from  other uses of the word "tense" in very substantial
ways?
   I think you would have to say it is present tense (despite historic
evidence to the contrary)because of the way it actually works within
discourse. If Bush says "We must stay the course in Irag," that
paraphrases roughly out to "We have to stay the course in Iraq."
(present tense.) But unlike every other present tense verb, it doesn't
put the -s ending on third person singular.  (How would calling it
present tense help a non-native speaker anticipate that problem?
Wouldn't calling it past tense get them to anticipate a different kind
of meaning, that Bush is in fact saying something about the past and
not about our present situation?) The clearest position, to me, is that
the modal ("must") presents his time of the telling attitude about the
situation.  This would be true even if we added perfect aspect.  "He
must have studied" paraphrases out to "It seems certain that he has
already studied." If you want to classify that as tense, then you are
using tense in a wider way than I would.
   When I answered Jed's question, I simply brought in information about
how a functional grammar might address the problem. When he asked about
"syntacticians," I thought he meant that somewhat inclusively. The
modal auxiliary is very important to the nature of an assertion. Tense
adds a very specific kind of time reference.  The modal auxiliaries
convey the present time attitude of the speaker about modal notions
like possibility, probability, obligation, and the like. These are very
important to the interpersonal nature of a statement. Our non-native
speaker needs to USE these structures, not just analyze them, and the
formal requirements (not adding the -s) are only one part of that.
  Does finite mean something like "assertional"?  Does "assertional" also
mean (or always include) "tense"?
   To some extent, we are just arguing about how wide a definition to give
to the word 'tense."
   To the extent that I get to think of myself as a "syntactician" (one
who worries about a view of syntax that is practical and teachable), I
would say that the modals have floated free of what we normally mean by
tense. It's either a very different kind of tense or different enough
to be thought of as outside the category.
   If that is not what Jed was interested in, then I apologize.

Craig
    >



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/
>

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/