I hope you have seen the heading question.

Shun
englishtense.com




----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Yates" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: Some suppositions


> 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/
>
>

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/