Bob,
Yes, exactly. That's how I more or less explain it to my kids, except I still
gather a list under modals in pairs
can/could
will/would etc

and add the Roman Figures ( my preference) I,II,III,IV
above Modal+ INF,Have + EN,BE + ING and MV. I also have under BE+ING, BE+EN to
cover passive .
I to IV is always a chain reaction, no matter how many of them are present. As
this is the set order they must appear in
 only one element from 'I' can  be used and only in that position. There's no way
to produce IV+I  or I+I. So out come the substitutes.

I also use a 'TIme Line', some classes called it Time Tunnel, to gather
expressions of time/ tenses in their relation to each other. This is too difficult
to depict in a mail.something like ( This looks crazy but it's better on a chalk
board!)

<^O<-->l-->
O= Past ED
l= Pres
<^= past perfect
<--> pres perf /option <--< pres perf prog.
--> expressions for future
which believe it or not  helps them to place differences in relationships.
he wore those socks for ten years O!
But thank goodness a distance from l
he has worn those socks for ten years <-->up to l! Critical
he has been wearing those socks for ten years<---<reaching into l = he's still
wearing them.We now vacate the room.

Under, l ,for present,+O,for past, the simple and progressive can be 'sketched'
in.I  use lllllllllll = simple = repetions or actions in a row etc
and a wavy line with an 'X' at the beginning and end sort of XUUUX
This has a definite beginning and hopefully an end.One class called it the 'blub'
tense, because it can 'blub' up bubble like in a time line.
I have just glanced at the Topic above, where the word accuracy  strikes me, and
at my clock, which strikes 1 hour after midnight. So for the sake of accuracy and
beauty sleep I will leave off here and take more time to formulate the
difficulties of black board visuals into words at a later date -  if this is at
all possible.

with apologies
Patsi Reeve-De Becker

( will I be struck off the list?)






Bob Yates wrote:

> One of the questions I face as a teacher of English grammar is how
> accurate should a description of English be.  Jeff provides us with a
> standard description of the English auxiliary system from an early
> generative perspective.  A version of which I use in my own teaching
> English grammar to pre-service teachers.
>
> > T + (Modal) + (Have + EN) + (BE + ING) + MV
>
> And, I agree
>
> > It is a more direct route to the understanding of the English
> > verb than memorization of a whole list of tenses, modes, and voices that
> > even we who teach grammar have a hard time remembering.
>
> As he showed with his examples, it is very useful to teach what past
> perfect progressive actually means.
>
> Note 4 is not nearly the problem he thinks it is.
>
> > Note #4:  We are dealing here only with simple sentences that occur in the
> > forms of the unelaborated basic sentence patterns. Used in other sentences,
> > slight differences occur in the formula which we will not go into at this
> > time. Just as an example, the auxiliary verb "do" might be present.
>
> Do occurs when there is nothing else in AUX and T is unable to be
> attached to the main verb.  We can all recognize structures when that
> happens and when that does not happen, can't we?
>
> In noting that NOT is located after T, we have an insight into the
> system which explains why children and second language learners of
> English go through what is referred to in the literature as a NO VP
> stage.  They need to figure out that NOT goes after tense in English
> This property of verbal negation is very unusual in the world's
> languages.
>
> However, there are aspects of the description above which present
> problems.
>
> > Note #3:  The above formula is for finite clauses. For nonfinite VPs, omit
> > T.
>
> This is not accurate and shows what is problematic with the
> description.
>
> In (1), to "describe English accurately" is nonfinite.  "Describe" has
> no tense.
>
>         1) We want to describe English accurately.
>
> Likewise, in (2), "be able to" is nonfinite.
>
>         2) We want to be able to describe English accurately.
>
> The description above predicts that (3) should be perfectly grammatical.
>
>         3) *We want to can to describe English accurately.
>
> The explanation I have for this (it is not an original insight) is that
> in modern English all of the modals have inherent tense.  As a
> consequence, they can never occur in a nonfinite position as "can" in
> (3).  By the way, we now have an explanation for why no modal every
> takes the agreement -s.  In English, you can never mark a verb twice for
> tense.  German modals, by the way, don't have this property. Because
> they have nonfinite form, they all can be marked for tense.
>
> (An aside. The ungrammaticality of (3) can not be explained by saying it
> makes no sense.  (2) is perfectly acceptable and "to be able to" and
> "can" in this context mean essentially the same.  This same argument can
> be made with "must" and "have to".  Such an interesting formal
> constraint raises questions about theories of grammar which assert that
> grammar rules must in some way be related to meaning.)
>
> To return to Jeff's description, it is much more accurate and insightful
> to say that ALL FINITE clauses in English have either T or a modal.
>
> We can now dispense with all of this description of the modals.
>
> > Modal.  We have quite a list. Memorize it. Can, could, will, would, shall,
> > should, may, might, must. The modal, if it occurs, is the first word in the
> > AUX. Therefore, if it occurs, it carries tense (past or not past). Can,
> > will, shall, and may are Not Past. Could, would, should, and might are Past.
> > Must is fuzzy in terms of tense and not a problem.
>
> Historically, the past and non-past distinction in the list above is
> correct.  If you know German, you can see recognize that past/non-past
> distinction in German modals  In reported speech, there are some
> remnants of this past/non-past distinction.
>
>         4) Last week, Bush said, "I will not interfere with the execution.
>         5) Last week Bush said that he would not interfere with the execution.
>
> However, there is a serious complication if the past/non-past
> distinction still exists.  If might, could, should, would are past, why
> are they all possible in the following?
>
>         6) The Cubs might/could/should/would win the pennant this year (for
> "would" insert: only if God intervenes).
>
> This is one of the ways modality is signaled in English, as Judy
> Diamondstone has just told us.
>
> I do not know how important it is for teachers of native speakers of
> English to know all of this. I think it is very important in being able
> to recognize passive constructions.  I also teach pre-service ESL
> teachers.  Understanding the formal properties of English auxiliary
> system for them is very important.
>
> Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University