Lauren, There's a terminological issue that might be causing some interference here, or at least might lead to claims that look conflicting but aren't. Many of us use the term "infinitive" for a particular form of a verb whether or not there's a "to" in front of it. Thus, "be" in "could be" is an infinitive, even though there's no "to." The to-less form is just called the "bare infinitive." In practice, of course, the bare infinitive looks exactly like the present tense for most verbs, with the very important exception that it doesn't take the -s for subject/verb agreement -- so, "he runs" and "he can run," but not "he can runs" or "he cans run." Your point about "be able" requiring a "to" after it is still, of course, quite valid. Herb can doubtless address this issue much better than I, but my sense is that the bare infinitive is tied to longer-standing constructions while more-recently developing constructions that are starting to *act* like modals, like "going to," "be able to," or "fixing to," use the...er...."to-ful" form. I have to admit, I can't think of another label. "Clad infinitive"? Bill Spruiell Dept. of English Central Michigan University -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask] Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 2:17 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: modals and tense Hello, all-- I think that the "can" / "be able" debate stems not from the issue of modals, but rather, whether a verb requires a subsequent infinitive to be complete. Take, for instance, this example, which I extract from a paper written in my introductory composition class: When I realized I wasn't as talented as the rest of my choir, I stopped to sing. Clearly, in this case, "stopped to" has been substituted for its equivalent in meaning, "ceased to." Thus it's evident that certain terms of similar meaning require different syntax. The same applies to "can" versus "be able." "Can" does not need to be followed by an infinitive; "be able" does. Am I simply restating the obvious? Perhaps I'm missing something. Regards, Lauren Quoting "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>: > Bob, > > I said what I did about "do" because some syntacticians have use the > facts of its synchronic behavior to argue that it is a modal. You have > the good sense not to be one of them. > > Herb > > > > Herb, > > You know much more about the history of the language than I do. > > However, I have no idea why you say the following: > >>>> "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> 11/03/07 10:41 PM >>> > For one thing, it means calling "do" a modal, which makes no semantic or > morphological > sense, since "do" can take both tense suffixes and does not participate > in the deontic/epistemic contrast true of all other modals. > > ****** > Unlike German, main verbs in modern English don't move for questions and > then there is obligatory-do support for negation when there is no other > helping verb. > > Why must one posit do as a modal to account for these facts? You know > there is another account available. > > 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/ > > 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/ 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/