On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 13:37:30 -0800 Larry Beason said: >Burkhard, > But I think the >concept of "quasi-modals" is a legitimate category even if--like all other >categories of grammar--not leak-proof. A quasi-modal is (to take a stab at >an informal definition) a group of words, normally two, that function as a >auxillary verb. The key part of this this definition is the term "function." My impression is that "quasi-modals" are a category because they perform some of the semantic functions of true modals: "have to" has a meaning very similar to "must" and "be able to" has a meaning very similar to "can." I think Burkhard makes a very good point that syntactically the quasi- modals have none of the characteristics of true modals. This is very easy to demonstrate. True modals, I believe, have inherent tense. Thus, they do not take the agreement -s (a tense marker) and they never occur in non-finite constructions. 1) I want to be able to explain grammar better to my students. 2) *I want to can explain grammar better to my students. 3) Having to leave early, the student sat by the door. 4) *Musting to leave early, the student sat by the door. Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University, [log in to unmask]