Register  Login  Active Topics  Maps  

Why are English modals this way now?

 Language Learning Forum : Philological Room Post Reply
9 messages over 2 pages: 1 2  Next >>
Papashaw1
Newbie
Australia
Joined 3790 days ago

30 posts - 35 votes

 
 Message 1 of 9
28 December 2013 at 4:50pm | IP Logged 
English modals are defective. You can't combine them with periphrastic tenses and there is no infinitive,
gerund/present participle, or past participle. The word "must" no longer has a past tense equivalent. Need and
ought are falling out of usage in the sense with a bare infinitive. You can't use a modal with an object, you can't
make a future or perfect, no modal stacking in standard speech, or creating IPP sentences. Tharf has died and so
has the preterite of it.

Does this represent a transitions to newer methods, did something happen along the way, what info can explain
these happenings? While there is records of transitioning and how some uses fell, I haven't found anything pointing
to a definitive answer.

Edited by Papashaw1 on 28 December 2013 at 4:50pm

1 person has voted this message useful



luke
Diglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6964 days ago

3133 posts - 4351 votes 
Speaks: English*, Spanish
Studies: Esperanto, French

 
 Message 2 of 9
28 December 2013 at 5:12pm | IP Logged 
Can you give examples of what you mean?

For the past tense of "must", it seems we have "had to".
Similarly, for future of "must", we have "we will have to".
And the future perfect, "we will be having to".

To me, it seems the simplified verb system in English is a bonus. E.G. The past, future, and future perfect (as
well as many other tenses of "must" are the same as "to have to".

This is not unlike languages such as Spanish where a verb like hacer does double duty as "to make" or "to
do" and similarly with "faire" in French.
1 person has voted this message useful



tarvos
Super Polyglot
Winner TAC 2012
Senior Member
China
likeapolyglot.wordpr
Joined 4466 days ago

5310 posts - 9399 votes 
Speaks: Dutch*, English, Swedish, French, Russian, German, Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Afrikaans
Studies: Greek, Modern Hebrew, Spanish, Portuguese, Czech, Korean, Esperanto, Finnish

 
 Message 3 of 9
28 December 2013 at 6:21pm | IP Logged 
Papashaw1 wrote:
 English modals are defective. You can't combine them with
periphrastic tenses and there is no infinitive,
gerund/present participle, or past participle. The word "must" no longer has a past
tense equivalent. Need and
ought are falling out of usage in the sense with a bare infinitive. You can't use a
modal with an object, you can't
make a future or perfect, no modal stacking in standard speech, or creating IPP
sentences. Tharf has died and so
has the preterite of it.

Does this represent a transitions to newer methods, did something happen along the way,
what info can explain
these happenings? While there is records of transitioning and how some uses fell, I
haven't found anything pointing
to a definitive answer.


Languages change over time. Especially a language like English which has to deal with
influences from all over the place because it's so global. Change is not a bad thing.
Otherwise you can argue that we should all speak like Proto-Indo-Europeans, or using
tam-tam, or better yet, cackle randomly and make noises like animals.
2 persons have voted this message useful



Chung
Diglot
Senior Member
Joined 6915 days ago

4228 posts - 8259 votes 
20 sounds
Speaks: English*, French
Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish

 
 Message 4 of 9
28 December 2013 at 7:34pm | IP Logged 
Papashaw1 wrote:
 English modals are defective. You can't combine them with periphrastic tenses and there is no infinitive,
gerund/present participle, or past participle. The word "must" no longer has a past tense equivalent. Need and
ought are falling out of usage in the sense with a bare infinitive. You can't use a modal with an object, you can't
make a future or perfect, no modal stacking in standard speech, or creating IPP sentences. Tharf has died and so
has the preterite of it.

Does this represent a transitions to newer methods, did something happen along the way, what info can explain
these happenings? While there is records of transitioning and how some uses fell, I haven't found anything pointing
to a definitive answer.


There's quite a bit out there on the development of modal verbs in English.

The Syntactic Evolution of Modal Verbs in the History of English
Modals in English and Irish
The history of modal verbs in the Middle English period
Why is “can” such an odd verb?
Modals and auxiliary verbs in English
The Development of the Modals in English: Radical versus Gradual Changes

On a related note, modal verbs are in a class of their own in some of the languages that I've studied, although there is a matter of degree in that the verb translateable as "can" has an infinitive (perhaps better thought of as corresponding to "to be able to" in English). Off the top of my head I can think of examples in BCMS/SC, Finnish, French, Hungarian and Polish. The complexity of modal verbs is definitely not a peculiarity of English.
3 persons have voted this message useful



Papashaw1
Newbie
Australia
Joined 3790 days ago

30 posts - 35 votes

 
 Message 5 of 9
28 December 2013 at 8:16pm | IP Logged 
Or the relative lack of complexity? All those things I listed above can't be done in English but can be done in other
Germanic languages. Dutch also lost their equivalent of tharf, I think English has expanded the number of pseudo
modals (supposed to, about to, have to, be able to, want to, had better/best/rather) when compared to other
Germanic languages.

Edited by Papashaw1 on 28 December 2013 at 8:21pm

1 person has voted this message useful



1e4e6
Octoglot
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 4049 days ago

1013 posts - 1588 votes 
Speaks: English*, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Norwegian, Dutch, Swedish, Italian
Studies: German, Danish, Russian, Catalan

 
 Message 6 of 9
28 December 2013 at 10:39pm | IP Logged 
I had an acquaintance recently who was an immigrant whose English was probably B1, B2
at
most, and said, "Tomorrow I will can come over." I noticed that that certainly should
be
incorrect, but I started to think, that that is the logical way that Germanic modal
verbs
work, like Dutch kunnen in "Morgen zal ik kunnen doorkomen". I think
that English
used to have the verb "cunnan" which was related, but why English cannot say "to can" I
am unsure, i.e., "I want to can speak Portuguese" is poor English, but ironically,
logical English.

Exactly the same phenomenon occurs with "may", because usually in English one cannot
say "to may", but rather, "to be permitted to" or "to be possible to", so a sentence
such as, "I think that I shall to can may cook dinner tonight", which is logical, but
incorrect.

Likewise, do-support is another
phenomenom that is like a modal verb, but to me serves almost no purpose except to
complicate already oversimplified modern English. Why it is awkward for Anglophones to
say something like, "Come you over tomorrow for dinner?" when many languages simply
invert the word-order in questions, or for declarative clauses, simply make a statement
directly, viz., "I eat not aubergine". I still cannot find a reason after years of
wondering, why "I do not eat aubergine" instead.

Edited by 1e4e6 on 28 December 2013 at 11:35pm

5 persons have voted this message useful



Papashaw1
Newbie
Australia
Joined 3790 days ago

30 posts - 35 votes

 
 Message 7 of 9
29 December 2013 at 9:51am | IP Logged 
It is the result of some pseudo prescriptivism, I don't notice anything really new for English.

For Example:German speakers are starting to use double perfects.
(He said: He have had slept) (I would have had slept) to add in a plusquamperfect for the conjunctives as a way to
fill in a gap. And there is the rhineland verlaufsform too.

Now we have our languages created from a high literary variety heavily prescribed for the sake of communication
and made complex. Then we have something like English or Beijing Mandarin. Beijing Mandarin is the perfect
example, it has been heavily prescribed to be as plain as possible, just compare it to Shanghainese. English didn't
have this done but there is a tendency to a similar thing. We don't allow in stuff people would logically want to use.

It really bugs me when people lament the death of the English languages because of things like ending sentences
with prepositions, modal stacking, "y'all", or non standard tenses.

No, their inability to accept these new helpful things is the darned problem!

One big question is why English articles and adjectives don't inflect for plurality, we still have plurals unlike gender
or case.

Edited by Papashaw1 on 30 December 2013 at 10:18am

2 persons have voted this message useful



Stolan
Senior Member
United States
Joined 3791 days ago

274 posts - 368 votes 
Speaks: English*
Studies: Thai, Lowland Scots
Studies: Arabic (classical), Cantonese

 
 Message 8 of 9
31 December 2013 at 8:09pm | IP Logged 
My hypothesis is that modal verbs are becoming uninflected auxiliaries.

Can and could will be seen as different instead of verb forms of one verb as in other Germanic languages.

We may even then say "I can see/ I can saw" "I could see, I could saw" just to distinguish tense.

We are lose shall because it doesn't have a distinguished meaning. And might may not have an equivalent past
tense then but it would not need one if the use changes.

But this is a mere guess and my linguistic knowledge is rusty.

Edit: It is interesting though why double modals stopped being used since the middle English era yet are making a
comeback for some reason.

Edited by Stolan on 31 December 2013 at 8:25pm



1 person has voted this message useful



This discussion contains 9 messages over 2 pages: 2  Next >>


Post ReplyPost New Topic Printable version Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page was generated in 0.3438 seconds.


DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved
No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization.