Herb observes that in reported speech the historic past and non-past tense of modals shows up.

Herb's examples:

He will be here.
He says he will be here.
He said he would be here. 

********

Given this question:

How do you analyze tense and modals?   

I answer that modals have inherent tense, and it is unclear whether that tense is past or present (non-past) (except in the case of reported speech).

My reasoning is as follows.  (1) and (2) mean approximately the same.

1) I can eat chocolate.
2) I am able to eat chocolate.

However, only "be able to" works with want.

3) *I want to can eat chocolate.
4)   I want to be able to eat chocolate.

("Have to" and must have the same distinction.)

If modals have NO tense, then we have to have a special explanation for why (3) is ungrammatical.  However, if modals have inherent tense, then it is straightforward why "can" is ungrammatical in a position where a verb must be without any tense.  

In claiming that modals have inherent tense, we can also explain why modals never take the agreement-s: the agreement-s would be double-marking the modal for tense.

Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri

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/