Herb Stahlke wrote:

> Because "should" and "ought" are modern reflexes of historic past tense
> forms.  "Be," on the other hand, can be marked for past or non-past.
> Should, which is, of course, derived historically from shall, no longer acts
> as if it has past meaning, but it has past form and can't take additional
> past tense morphology.

And, shun Tang responds:

> But the phenomenon happens to all kinds of auxiliary modals: would, could,
> might, etc. Should we put on every single one an singular history?

All of these modals have lost their historical past tense meaning.  To
my knowledge, the only place where they retain some of their past tense
meaning is in reported speech.

1) At the end of November, 2000, Throckmorton said, "The Supreme Court
will decide the winner of the election.

2) At the end of November, 2000, Throckmorton correctly predicted that
the Supreme Court would decide the winner of the election.

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/