Craig,

My original post was a response to Jed's question about whether modals
have "inherent tense," or whatever you want to label it, already in
them.  (I am less interested in name for this property.)

I gave a rather mundane example why some people want to make that claim.

1a) *Bob wants to can drink beer.
  b) Bob want to be able to drink beer. 

If modals are just like any other verbs that have a bare form, then
explaining 1(a) requires a very special explanation, especially given
the fact that 1(b) is perfectly grammatical.

Of course, we need to have a way of talking about the meanings of
modals. 

> 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.  

First, Jed's question was NOT about meaning.  

Second, my initial interest in grammar comes from ESL, and from that
perspective, I need a way to understand non-standard constructions like
(2) and (3a).

2)  *Bob cans drink beer.

3a)  *Bob does not can drink beer.   But, 
 b)  Bob is not able to drink beer. 

Examples (2) and (3a) can be accounted for by a representation of the
first verb-expansion rule Martha presented.  This is another reason why
I don't think it is the most insightful to describe modals.

The "most important concern" you identify above is insufficient for 
me in trying to understand the non-standard forms in (2) and (3a).  

Perhaps, some appeal to the additional meaning modals provide can
explain the facts of 2 and 3, but I don't know what that appeal is.  
Perhaps, I am missing something about meaning that can explain the
formal properties of modals.  What am I missing? 
 
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/