I suspect that Southeastern double modals are more likely a historical inheritance than a regional innovation. Double modals weren't unusual in Middle English or Early Modern English. The fact that Standard English doesn't have them is because it's lost them. Your suggestion that this is "yet another case of spoken dialect reducing the number of words and keeping the meaning" assumes that the standard dialect that the standard has a source relationship to non-standard relationships rather than being simply another variety of English, albeit the economically, politically, and socially successful one. Of course, the elliptical nature of spoken language is a characteristic of speech as opposed ot writing, and, since most writing is in Standard Written English, not non-standard dialects, spoken language will often appear to leave things out that are recoverable from context.
Herb
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Christine Reintjes
Sent: Fri 11/5/2004 9:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: elided infinitives (trying again)
Hi Richard,
I live in Morehead City, so I know these double modals well.
* I might could get there.
* She might can do it.
*He used to could do it but can't anymore
I was trying to explain the difference between "can, could and to be able
to" to an ESL student recently. My students hear the double modals all the
time. It seems like yet another case of spoken dialect reducing the number
of words and keeping the meaning.
I might be able to get there.
She might be able to do it.
He used to be able to do it but can't anymore.
--
Christine Reintjes Martin
[log in to unmask]
>From: "Veit, Richard" <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: elided infinitives (trying again)
>Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:37:24 -0500
>
>In my corner of North Carolina, the following double modals are all
>common expressions:
>
>
>
>* I might could get there.
>* She might can do it.
>* He used to could do it but can't anymore.
>
>________________________
>
>
>
>Richard Veit
>
>Department of English, UNCW
>
>Wilmington, NC 28403-5947
>
>910-962-3324
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
>Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 3:31 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: elided infinitives (trying again)
>
>
>
>Dick & Kent,
>
>
>
>I call the "nonfinite infinitive" a "bare infinitive" because it lacks
>the grammatical marker "to." My inclination is to call any verb that
>has primarily "modal" meaning a "modal" and distinguish between those
>that take a marked infinitive and those that take a bare infinitive.
>
>
>
>A colleague of mine at lunch today used the construction "might could."
>("A hypernova might could become a black hole.") In such an expression
>the past tense form of a modal ("could" for "can") is being used as a
>bare infinitive after the past tense form of another modal ("might" for
>"may")! The first modal has subjective meaning, i.e., it tells about
>the speakers attitude toward the assertion of the clause (he was
>uncertain in his own mind about its truth); the second modal is telling
>about the objective meaning, i.e., the probability of the situation in
>the assertion actually obtaining (uncertainty about whether it actually
>has to happen). Both of these modals can be used in either sense. Does
>anyone teach this kind of thing?
>
>
>
>Bruce
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 11/4/2004 1:13:27 PM >>>
>
>Kent,
>
>You're right. "I am going to run" is ambiguous.
>
>The "to run" in the sentence that paraphrases as "I am going (somewhere)
>for the purpose of running" has an adverbial infinitive phrase. In the
>other interpretation (paraphrase: "I will run"), "be going to" can be
>considered a multi-word modal (the modals include will, shall, may, can,
>and must). Modals are followed by nonfinite verbs (verbs without any
>inflections). Your question then is whether those nonfinite verbs (e.g.,
>"sing" in "He may sing tomorrow") can also be called "infinitives" or
>whether that term is reserved for nonfinite verbs preceded by "to."
>
>Any answers out there?
>
>Dick Veit
>
>________________________
>
>Richard Veit
>Department of English, UNCW
>Wilmington, NC 28403-5947
>910-962-3324
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>On Behalf Of Kent Johnson
>Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 1:06 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: elided infinitives (trying again)
>
>Dick,
>
>Thanks for the reply. By "elided infinitive" (there must be another
>term), I don't mean the whole infinitive, but an infinitive with a
>missing "to."
>
>Let me ask it this way: In the sentence "I am going to run," is the
>"to" different if I mean that I am "on my way" to run, as opposed to my
>meaning that I "plan to run" later in the day? Is there a missing,
>contentless "to" in either of these sentences--dropped because we don't
>use a contentless (as you put it) "to" when the infinitive is preceded
>by a meaningful, prepostional "to"?
>
>I know the above is a really strange question, but I'm asking it in the
>context of the Spanish grammatical issue I tried to explain in my post
>yesterday.
>
>thanks much,
>
>Kent
>
>*
>
>I suppose the infinitive marker "to" could be called a "preposition"
>in
>the sense that it is in a "pre-position" in relation to a verb, but it
>is otherwise quite different from the class of prepositions that
>precede
>noun phrases.
>
>For one thing, the preposition "to" can be defined in terms of
>meaning:
>"in the direction toward; reaching as far as, etc." whereas the
>infinitive marker "to" is contentless, unparaphrasable, and definable
>only in terms of function (a marker that precedes an infinitive). I'd
>call the latter "to" its own part of speech, namely an infinitive
>marker.
>
>As for elided infinitives, do you mean things like "Mary was elected
>treasurer," which could be said to be reduced from "Mary was elected
>to
>be treasurer"?
>
>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/
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
>This message may contain confidential information, and is
>intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
>is addressed.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
>
>
>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/
|
