Bob,
   I know we have been over this issue before, and I have no interest in
trying to argue a position or come to resolution of differences.  But
clarifying differences is, I think, helpful for anyone who might be
still listening in.> When you say the following (with apologies for
pulling it from context):

"This rule describes your comment that the first element in the verb
> string carries the tense (i.e., is the "finite" verb)."

it seems clear that being finite and carrying tense are interchangeable in
your thinking.  (It's exactly the point jed was asking about.)

It's clearer, I think, if we reverse the statement: "The first element in
the verb phrase is the finite verb (i.e. carries the tense)."

If "being finite" means "carrying tense", then the question is not an open
one for you. And I can respect that position.  Many of us start from a
position of being not so sure.

Certainly, the more important considerations for a public grammar are how
the modals add a meaning additional to whatever they may or may not convey
of tense.  In that area, I think we have room for much wider agreement.

Craig

A couple of points.
>
> Herb,
> I know that you have forgotten more about linguistics than I would ever
> know.  However, I am sure that users of the language today don't have
> knowledge of historical accidents.
>
>> I'm not sure whether I want to make a theoretical argument out  > of a
> historical accident.
>
> **************
> Martha's representation of the verb expansion rule is  a good example of
> how a description is a theory.
>
> *****
>   MV = T + (M) + (have + -en) + (be + -ing) + V
>
> This rule describes your comment that the first element in the verb
> string carries the tense (i.e., is the "finite" verb).
>
> An alternate version of this formula has a different opening slot:  a
> choice of T or M.
>
> ******
> If (T) -- tense is separate from modals, then modals are without tense.
> That predicts a sentence like 1 is grammatical.
>
> 1)  *Bob wants to can drink English.
>
> And, it needs to tell a story why (-s) does not go on to modals, but
> does on have and be.
>
> Martha's alternative (T or M) does not have these problems.
>
> Bob Yates
> Central Missouri State University
>
> 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/