Herb observes that in reported speech the historic past and non-past tense of modals shows up. Herb's examples: He will be here. He says he will be here. He said he would be here. ******** Given this question: How do you analyze tense and modals? I answer that modals have inherent tense, and it is unclear whether that tense is past or present (non-past) (except in the case of reported speech). My reasoning is as follows. (1) and (2) mean approximately the same. 1) I can eat chocolate. 2) I am able to eat chocolate. However, only "be able to" works with want. 3) *I want to can eat chocolate. 4) I want to be able to eat chocolate. ("Have to" and must have the same distinction.) If modals have NO tense, then we have to have a special explanation for why (3) is ungrammatical. However, if modals have inherent tense, then it is straightforward why "can" is ungrammatical in a position where a verb must be without any tense. In claiming that modals have inherent tense, we can also explain why modals never take the agreement-s: the agreement-s would be double-marking the modal for tense. Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri 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/