The
modal verbs of English are a small class of
auxiliary verbs used mostly to express
modality (properties such as possibility, obligation, etc.).
They can be distinguished from other verbs by their
defectiveness (they do not have
participle or
infinitive forms) and by the fact that they do not take the
ending -(e)s in the third-person singular.
The principal English modal verbs are can, could,
may, might, must, shall, should,
will and would. Certain other verbs are sometimes, but
not always, classed as modals; these include ought, had
better, and (in certain uses) dare and need. Verbs
which share some but not all of the characteristics of the principal
modals are sometimes called "semimodals".
Modal verbs and their features
The verbs customarily classed as modals in English have the
following properties:
- They do not
inflect, except insofar as some of them come in present–past
(present–preterite)
pairs. They do not add the ending -(e)s in the
third-person singular (the present-tense modals therefore follow
the
preterite-present paradigm).
- They are
defective: they are not used as
infinitives or
participles (except occasionally in non-standard English;
see
Double modals below), nor as
imperatives, nor (in the standard way) as
subjunctives.
- They function as
auxiliary verbs: they modify the meaning of another verb,
which they govern. This verb generally appears as a bare
infinitive, although in some definitions a modal verb can also
govern the to-infinitive (as in the case of ought).
- They have the
syntactic properties associated with auxiliary verbs in
English, principally that they can undergo
subject–auxiliary inversion (in questions, for example) and
can be negated by the appending of not after the verb.
The following verbs have all of the above properties, and can be
classed as the principal modal verbs of English. They are listed
here in present–preterite pairs where applicable:
- can and could
- may and might
- shall and should
- will and would
- must (no preterite; see
etymology below)
Note that the preterite forms are not necessarily used to refer
to past time, and in some cases they are near synonyms to the
present forms. Note that most of these so-called preterite forms are
most often used in the
subjunctive mood in the present tense. The auxiliary verbs
may and let are also used often in the
subjunctive mood. Famous examples of these are "May The Force be
with you," and "Let God bless you with good." These are both
sentences that express some uncertainty, hence they are subjunctive
sentences.
The verbs listed below mostly share the above features, but with
certain differences. They are sometimes, but not always, categorized
as modal verbs.[1]
They may also be called "semimodals".
- The verb ought differs from the principal
modals only in that it governs a to-infinitive rather
than a bare infinitive (compare he should go with he
ought to go).
- The verbs dare and need can be
used as modals, often in the negative (Dare he fight?;
You dare not do that.; You need not go.), although
they are more commonly found in constructions where they appear
as ordinary inflected verbs (He dares to fight; You
don't need to go). There is also a dialect verb, nearly
obsolete but sometimes heard in
Appalachia and the
Deep South of the
United States: darest, which means "dare not",
as in "You darest do that."
- The verb had in the expression had better
behaves like a modal verb, hence had better (considered
as a
compound verb) is sometimes classed as a modal or semimodal.
- The verb used in the expression used to (do
something) can behave as a modal, but is more often used
with
do-support than with auxiliary-verb syntax: Did
she use to do it? and She didn't use to do it are
more common than Used she to do it? and She used not
(usedn't) to do it.
Other
English auxiliaries appear in a variety of inflected forms and
are not regarded as modal verbs. These are:
- be, used as an auxiliary in
passive voice and
continuous aspect constructions; it follows auxiliary-verb
syntax even when used as a
copula, and in auxiliary-like formations such as be
going to, is to and be about to;
- have, used as an auxiliary in
perfect aspect constructions, including the idiom
have got (to); it is also used in have to, which
has modal meaning, but here (as when denoting
possession) have only rarely follows auxiliary-verb
syntax (see also
must below);
- do; see
do-support.
For more general information about English verb inflection and
auxiliary usage, see
English verbs and
English clause syntax. For details of the uses of the particular
modals, see
Usage of specific verbs below.
Etymology
The modals can and could are from Old English
can(n) and cuþ, which were respectively present and
preterite forms of the verb cunnan ("to be able"), The silent
l in the spelling of could results from analogy with
would and should.
Similarly, may and might are from Old English
mæg and meahte, respectively present and preterite forms
of magan ("may, to be able"); shall and should
are from sceal and sceolde, respectively present and
preterite forms of sculan ("to owe, be obliged"); and will
and would are from wille and wolde,
respectively present and preterite forms of willan ("to wish,
want").
The aforementioned Old English verbs cunnan, magan,
sculan and willan followed the
preterite-present paradigm (or in the case of willan, a
similar but irregular paradigm), which explains the absence of the
ending -s in the third person on the present forms can,
may, shall and will. (The original Old English
forms given above were first and third person singular forms; their
descendant forms became generalized to all persons and numbers.)
The verb must comes from Old English moste, part of
the verb motan ("to be able to, be obliged to"). This was
another preterite-present verb, of which moste was in fact
the preterite (the present form mot gave rise to mote,
which was used as a modal verb in Early Modern English; but must
has now lost its past connotations and has replaced mote).
Similarly, ought was originally a past form – it derives from
ahte, preterite of agan ("to own"), another Old
English preterite-present verb, whose present tense form ah
has given the modern (regular) verb owe (and ought was
formerly used as a past tense of owe).
The verb dare also originates from a preterite-present
verb, durran ("to dare"), specifically its present tense
dear(r), although in its non-modal uses in Modern English it is
conjugated regularly. However need comes from the regular Old
English verb neodian (meaning "to be necessary") – the
alternative third person form need (in place of needs),
which has become the norm in modal uses, became common in the 16th
century.[2]
Syntax
A modal verb serves as an auxiliary to another verb, which
appears in
infinitive form (the bare infinitive, or the to-infinitive
in the cases of ought and used as discussed above).
Examples: You must escape; This may be difficult.
The verb governed by the modal may be another auxiliary
(necessarily one that can appear in infinitive form – this includes
be and have, but not another modal, except in the
non-standard cases described below under
Double modals). Hence a modal may introduce a chain (technically
catena) of verb forms, in which the other auxiliaries express
properties such as
aspect and
voice, as in He must have been given a new job.
Modals can appear in
tag questions and other
elliptical sentences without the governed verb being expressed:
...can he?; I mustn't.; Would they?
Like other auxiliaries, modal verbs are
negated by the addition of the word not after them. (The
modification of meaning may not always correspond to simple
negation, as in the case of must not.) The modal can
combines with not to form the single word cannot. Most
of the modals have
contracted negated forms in n't which are commonly used
in informal English: can't, mustn't, won't
(from will), etc.
Again like other auxiliaries, modal verbs undergo inversion with
their subject, in forming questions and in the other cases described
in the article on
subject–auxiliary inversion: Could you do this?; On no
account may you enter. When there is negation, the contraction
with n't may undergo inversion as an auxiliary in its own
right: Why can't I come in? (or: Why can I not come in?).
More information on these topics can be found at
English clause syntax.
Past forms
The preterite (past) forms given above (could, might,
should and, would, corresponding to can, may,
shall and will, respectively) do not always simply
modify the meaning of the modal to give it past time reference. The
only one regularly used as an ordinary
past tense is could, when referring to ability: I
could swim may serve as a past form of I can swim.
All the preterites are used as past equivalents for the
corresponding present modals in
indirect speech and similar clauses requiring the rules of
sequence of tenses to be applied. For example, in 1960 it might
have been said that People think that we will all
be driving hovercars by the year 2000, whereas at a later date
it might be reported that In 1960, people thought we
would all be driving hovercars by the year 2000.
This "future-in-the-past" usage of would can also occur in
independent sentences: I moved to Green Gables in 1930; I would
live there for the next ten years.
In many cases, in order to give modals past reference, they are
used together with a "perfect infinitive", namely the auxiliary
have and a past participle, as in I should have asked her;
You may have seen me. Sometimes these expressions are limited
in meaning; for example, must have can only refer to
certainty, whereas past obligation is expressed by an alternative
phrase such as had to (see
Replacements for defective forms below).
Conditional
sentences
The preterite forms of modals are used in
counterfactual conditional sentences, in the
apodosis (then-clause). The modal would (sometimes
should as a
first-person alternative) is used to produce the conditional
construction which is typically used in clauses of this type: If
you loved me, you would support me. It can be replaced by
could (meaning "would be able to") and might (meaning
"would possibly") as appropriate.
When the clause has past time reference, the construction with
the modal plus perfect infinitive (see above) is used: If they
(had) wanted to do it, they would (could/might) have done it
by now. (The would have done construction is called the
conditional perfect.)
The
protasis (if-clause) of such a sentence typically
contains the past tense of a verb (or the
past perfect construction, in the case of past time reference),
without any modal. The modal could may be used here in its
role as the past tense of can (if I could speak French).
However all the modal preterites can be used in such clauses with
certain types of hypothetical future reference: if I should lose
or should I lose (equivalent to if I lose); if you
would/might/could stop doing that (usually used as a form of
request).
Sentences with the verb wish (and expressions of wish
using if only...) follow similar patterns to the if-clauses
referred to above, when they have counterfactual present or past
reference. When they express a desired event in the near future, the
modal would is used: I wish you would visit me; If
only he would give me a sign.
For more information see
English conditional sentences and
English subjunctive.
Replacements for defective forms
As noted above, English modal verbs are
defective in that they do not have infinitive, participle,
imperative or (standard) subjunctive forms, and in some cases past
forms. However in many cases there exist equivalent expressions that
carry the same meaning as the modal, and can be used to supply the
missing forms. In particular:
- The modals can and could, in their meanings
expressing ability, can be replaced by am/is/are able to
and was/were able to. Additional forms can thus be
supplied: the infinitive (to) be able to, the subjunctive
and (rarely) imperative be able to, and the participles
being able to and been able to.
- The modal must in most meanings can be replaced by
have/has to. This supplies the past and past participle form
had to, and other forms (to) have to, having to.
- When will or shall expresses the future, the
expression am/is/are going to has similar meaning. This
can supply other forms: was/were going to, (to) be
going to, being/been going to.
- The modals should and ought to might be
replaced by am/is/are supposed to, thus supplying the
forms was/were supposed to, (to) be supposed to,
being/been supposed to.
Contractions and reduced pronunciation
As already mentioned, most of the modals in combination with
not form commonly used
contractions: can't, won't, etc. Some of the
modals also have contracted forms themselves:
- The verb will is often contracted to 'll; the
same contraction may also represent shall.
- The verb would (or should, when used as a
first-person equivalent of would) is often contracted to
'd.
- The had of had better is also often contracted
to 'd. (The same contraction is also used for other cases
of had as an auxiliary.)
Certain of the modals generally have a weak pronunciation when
they are not stressed or otherwise prominent; for example, can
is usually pronounced
/kǝn/. The same applies to certain words following modals,
particularly auxiliary have: a combination like should
have is normally reduced to
/ʃʊd(h)ǝv/ or just
/ʃʊdǝ/ "shoulda". Also ought to can become
/ɔːtǝ/ "oughta". See
Weak and strong forms in English.
Usage of
specific verbs
Can and
could
The modal verb can expresses possibility in either a
dynamic,
deontic or
epistemic sense, that is, in terms of innate ability,
permissibility, or possible circumstance. For example:
- I can speak English means "I am able to speak
English" or "I know how to speak English".
- You can smoke here means "you may (are permitted to)
smoke here" (in formal English may or might is
sometimes considered more correct than can or could
in these senses).
- There can be strong rivalry between siblings means
that such rivalry is possible.
The preterite form could is used as the past tense or
conditional form of can in the above meanings (see
Past forms above). It is also used to express possible
circumstance: We could be in trouble here. It is preferable
to use could, may or might rather than can
when expressing possible circumstance in a particular situation (as
opposed to the general case, as in the "rivalry" example above,
where can or may is used).
Both can and could can be used to make requests:
Can/could you pass me the cheese? means "Please pass me the
cheese" (where could indicates greater politeness).
It is common to use can with verbs of perception such as
see, hear, etc., as in I can see a tree.
Aspectual distinctions can be made, such as I could see it
(ongoing state) vs. I saw it (event). See
can see.
The use of could with the perfect infinitive expresses
past ability or possibility, either in some
counterfactual circumstance (I could have told him if I had
seen him), or in some real circumstance where the act in
question was not in fact realized: I could have told him
yesterday (but in fact I didn't). The use of can with the
perfect infinitive, can have..., is a rarer alternative to
may have... (for the negative see below).
The negation of can is the single word cannot, only
occasionally written separately as can not.[3]
Though cannot is preferred (as can not is potentially
ambiguous), its irregularity (all other uncontracted verbal
negations use at least two words) sometimes causes those unfamiliar
with the nuances of English spelling to use the separated form. Its
contracted form is can't (pronounced
/kɑːnt/ in
RP and some other dialects). The negation of could is the
regular could not, contracted to couldn't.
The negative forms reverse the meaning of the modal (to express
inability, impermissibility or impossibliity). This differs from the
case with may or might used to express possibility:
it can't be true has a different meaning than it may not be
true. Thus can't (or cannot) is often used to
express disbelief in the possibility of something, as must
expresses belief in the certainty of something. When the
circumstance in question refers to the past, the form with the
perfect infinitive is used: he can't (cannot) have done it
means "I believe it impossible that he did it" (compare he must
have done it).
Occasionally not is applied to the infinitive rather than
to the modal (stress
would then be applied to make the meaning clear): I could not
do that, but I'm going to do it anyway.
May and
might
The verb may expresses possibility in either an
epistemic or
deontic sense, that is, in terms of possible circumstance or
permissibility. For example:
- The mouse may be dead means that it is possible that
the mouse is dead.
- You may leave the room means that the listener is
permitted to leave the room.
In expressing possible circumstance, may can have future
as well as present reference (he may arrive means that it is
possible that he will arrive; I may go to the mall means that
I am considering going to the mall).
The preterite form might is used as a synonym for may
when expressing possible circumstance (as can could – see
above). It is sometimes said that might and could
express a greater degree of doubt than may. For uses of
might in conditional sentences, and as a past equivalent to
may in such contexts as indirect speech, see
Past forms above.
May (or might) can also express irrelevance in
spite of certain or likely truth: He may be taller than I am, but
he is certainly not stronger could mean "While it is (or may be)
true that he is taller than I am, that does not make a difference,
as he is certainly not stronger."
May can indicate presently given permission for present or
future actions: You may go now. Might used in this way
is milder: You might go now if you feel like it. Similarly
May I use your phone? is a request for permission (might
would be more hesitant or polite).
A less common use of may is to express wishes, as in
May you live long and happy (see also
English subjunctive).
When used with the perfect infinitive, may have indicates
uncertainty about a past circumstance, whereas might have can
have that meaning, but it can also refer to possibilities that did
not occur but could have in other circumstances (see also
conditional sentences above).
- She may have eaten the cake (the speaker does not
know whether she ate cake).
- She might have eaten cake (this means either the same
as the above, or else means that she did not eat cake but that
it was or would have been possible for her to eat cake).
Note that the above perfect forms refer to possibility, not
permission (although the second sense of might have might
sometimes imply permission).
The negated form of may is may not; this does not
have a common contraction (mayn't is obsolete). The negation
of might is might not; this is sometimes contracted to
mightn't, mostly in
tag questions and in other questions expressing doubt (Mightn't
I come in if I took my boots off?).
The meaning of the negated form depends on the usage of the
modal. When possibility is indicated, the negation effectively
applies to the main verb rather than the modal: That may/might
not be means "That may/might not-be", i.e. "That may fail to be
true". But when permission is being expressed, the negation applies
to the modal or entire verb phrase: You may not go now means
"You are not permitted to go now" (except in rare cases where not
and the main verb are both stressed to indicate that they go
together: You may go or not go, whichever you wish).
Shall and
should
Main article:
Shall and will
The verb shall is used in some (particularly formal)
varieties of English in place of will, indicating futurity,
when the subject is first person (I shall, we shall).
With second- and third-person subjects, shall indicates an
order, command or prophecy: Cinderella, you shall go to the ball!
It is often used in writing laws and specifications: Those
convicted of violating this law shall be imprisoned for a term of
not less than three years; The electronics assembly shall be
able to operate within a normal temperature range.
Shall is sometimes used in questions (in the first, or
possibly third, person) to ask for advice or confirmation of a
suggestion: Shall I read now?; What shall we wear?
Should is sometimes used as a first-person equivalent for
would (in its conditional and "future-in-the-past" uses), in
the same way that shall can replace will. Should
is also used to form a replacement for the present subjunctive in
some varieties of English, and also in some conditional sentences
with hypothetical future reference – see
English subjunctive and
English conditional sentences.
Should is often used to describe an expected or
recommended behavior or circumstance. It can be used to give advice
or to describe
normative behavior, though without such strong obligatory force
as must or have to. Thus You should never lie
describes a social or ethical norm. It can also express what will
happen according to theory or expectations: This should work.
In these uses it is equivalent to
ought to.
Both shall and should can be used with the perfect
infinitive (shall/should have (done)) in their role as
first-person equivalents of will and would (thus to
form future perfect or conditional perfect structures). Also
shall have may express an order with perfect aspect (you
shall have finished your duties by nine o'clock). When should
is used in this way it usually expresses something which would have
been expected, or normatively required, at some time in the past,
but which did not in fact happen (or is not known to have happened):
I should have done that yesterday ("it would have been
expedient, or expected of me, to do that yesterday").
The negative forms are shall not and should not,
contracted to shan't and shouldn't. The negation
effectively applies to the main verb rather than the auxiliary:
you should not do this implies not merely that there is no need
to do it, but that there is a need not to do it.
Will and
would
The modal will is often used to express futurity (The
next meeting will be held on Thursday). Since this is an
expression of time rather than modality, constructions with will
(or sometimes shall; see above and at
shall and will) are often referred to as the
future tense of English, and forms like will do, will
be doing, will have done and will have been doing
are often called the
simple future,
future progressive (or future continuous),
future perfect, and
future perfect progressive (continuous). With first-person
subjects (I, we), in varieties where shall is
used for simple expression of futurity, the use of will
indicates particular willingness or determination.
Future events are also sometimes referred to using the present
tense (see
Uses of English verb forms), or using the
going to construction.
Will as a modal also has a number of different uses:[4][5]
- It can express
habitual aspect; for example, he will make mistakes
may mean that he frequently makes mistakes (here the word
will is usually stressed somewhat, and often expresses
annoyance).
- It can express strong probability with present time
reference, as in That will be John at the door.
- It can be used to give an order, as in You will do it
right now.
The preterite form would is used in some
conditional sentences, and as a past form of future will
as described above under
Past forms. (It is sometimes replaced by should in the
first person in the same way that will is replaced by
shall.) Other uses of would include:
- Expression of politeness, as in I would like... (for
"I want") and Would you (be so kind as to) do this? (for
"Please do this").
- Expression of habitual aspect in past time, as in Back
then, I would eat early and would walk to school.[6][7]
Both will and would can be used with the perfect
infinitive (will have, would have), either to form the
future perfect and conditional perfect forms already referred to, or
to express
perfect aspect in their other meanings (e.g. there will have
been an arrest order, expressing strong probability).
The negated forms are will not (contracted to won't)
and would not (contracted to wouldn't). In the modal
meanings of will the negation is effectively applied to the
main verb phrase and not to the modality (e.g. when expressing an
order, you will not do it expresses an order not to do it,
rather than just the absence of an order to do it). For contracted
forms of will and would themselves, see
Contractions and reduced pronunciation above.
Must
The modal must expresses obligation or necessity: You
must use this form; We must try to escape. It can also
express a confident assumption (the
epistemic rather than deontic use), such as in It must be
here somewhere.
An alternative to must is the expression have to
(in the present tense sometimes
have got to), which is often more idiomatic in informal
English when referring to obligation. This also provides other forms
in which must is defective (see
Replacements for defective forms above) and enables simple
negation (see below).
When used with the perfect infinitive (i.e. with have and
the past participle), must expresses only assumption: Sue
must have left means that the speaker confidently assumes that
Sue has left. To express obligation or necessity in the past, had
to or some other synonym must be used.
The formal negation of must is must not (contracted
to mustn't). However the negation effectively applies to the
main verb, not the modality: You must not do this means that
you are required not to do it, not just that you are not required to
do it. To express the lack of requirement or obligation, the
negative of have to or need (see below) can be used:
You don't have to do it; You needn't do it.
The above negative forms are not usually used in the sense of
confident assumption; here it is common to use can't to
express confidence that something is not the case (as in It can't
be here or, with the perfect, Sue can't have left).
Mustn't can nonetheless be used as a simple negative of
must in
tag questions and other questions expressing doubt: We must
do it, mustn't we? Mustn't he be in the operating room by this
stage?
Ought
to and had better
Ought is used with meanings similar to those of should
expressing expectation or requirement. The principal grammatical
difference is that ought is used with the to-infinitive
rather than the bare infinitive, hence we should go is
equivalent to we ought to go. Because of this
difference of syntax, ought is sometimes excluded from the
class of modal verbs, or is classed as a semimodal.
The reduced pronunciation of ought to (see
Contractions and reduced pronunciation above) is sometimes given
the
eye dialect spelling oughta.
Ought can be used with perfect infinitives in the same way
as should (but again with the insertion of to): you
ought to have done that earlier.
The negated form is ought not or oughtn't,
equivalent in meaning to shouldn't (but again used with to).
The expression had better has similar meaning to should
and ought when expressing recommended or expedient behavior:
I had better get down to work (it can also be used to give
instructions with the implication of a threat: you had better
give me the money or else). The had of this expression is
similar to a modal: it governs the bare infinitive, it is defective
in that it is not replaceable by any other form of the verb have,
and it behaves syntactically as an auxiliary verb. For this reason
the expression had better, considered as a kind of
compound verb, is sometimes classed along with the modals or as
a semimodal.
The had of had better can be contracted to 'd,
or in some informal usage (especially American) can be omitted. The
expression can be used with a perfect infinitive: you'd better
have finished that report by tomorrow. There is a negative form
hadn't better, used mainly in questions: Hadn't we better
start now? It is more common for the infinitive to be negated by
means of not after better: You'd better not do that
(meaning that you are strongly advised not to do that).
Dare and
need
The verbs dare and need can be used both as modals
and as ordinary conjugated (non-modal) verbs. As non-modal verbs
they can take a to-infinitive as their complement (I dared
to answer her; He needs to clean that), although dare
may also take a bare infinitive (He didn't dare go). In their
uses as modals they govern a bare infinitive, and are usually
restricted to questions and negative sentences.
Examples of the modal use of dare, followed by equivalents
using non-modal dare where appropriate:
- Dare he do it? ("Does he dare to do it?")
- I daren't (or dare not) try ("I don't
dare to try")
- How dare you!; How dare he! (idiomatic
expressions of outrage)
- I dare say (another idiomatic expression, here
exceptionally without negation or question syntax)
The modal use of need is close in meaning to must
expressing necessity or obligation. The negated form need not
(needn't) differs in meaning from must not, however;
it expresses lack of necessity, whereas must not expresses
prohibition. Examples:
- Need I continue? ("Do I need to continue? Must I
continue?")
- You needn't water the grass ("You don't have to water
the grass"; compare the different meaning of You mustn't
water...)
Modal need can also be used with the perfect infinitive:
Need I have done that? It is most commonly used here in the
negative, to denote that something that was done was (from the
present perspective) not in fact necessary: You needn't have left
that tip.
Used to
The verbal expression used to expresses past states or
past habitual actions, usually with the implication that they are no
longer so. It is followed by the infinitive (that is, the full
expression consists of the verb used plus the to-infinitive).
Thus the statement I used to go to college means that the
speaker formerly habitually went to college, and normally implies
that this is no longer the case.
Used to may be classed among the modals or semimodals on
the ground that it is invariant and defective in form like the other
modals, and can follow auxiliary-verb syntax: it is possible to form
questions like Used he to come here? and negatives like He
used not (rarely usedn't) to come here. More
common, however, (though not the most formal style) is the syntax
that treats used as a past tense of an ordinary verb, and
forms questions and negatives using
did: Did he use to come here? He didn't use to come
here.
Note the difference in pronunciation between the ordinary verb
use
/juːz/ and its past form used
/juːzd/ (as in scissors are used to cut paper), and
the verb forms described here:
/juːst/ and (when supported by did)
/juːs/.
The verbal use of used to should not be confused with the
adjectival use of the same expression, meaning "familiar with", as
in I am used to this, we must get used to the cold.
When the adjectival form is followed by a verb, the gerund is used:
I am used to going to college in the mornings. (The
pronunciation of the adjectival used in this expression is
also
/juːst/.)
Double modals
In formal standard English usage, more than one modal verb is not
used consecutively, as modals are followed by an infinitive, which
they themselves lack. They can only be combined with non-modal
constructions that have a modal function, such as have to,
which in spite of its function is not a modal verb. Thus, might
have to is acceptable, but might must is not, even though
must and have to can normally be used interchangeably.
A greater variety of double modals appears in some regional
dialects. In
Southern American English, for example, phrases such as might
could or ought to should are sometimes used in
conversation.[8][9]
The double modal may sometimes be redundant, as in "I ought to
should do something about it", where ought to and should
are synonymous and either one could be removed from the sentence. In
other double modals, the two modal verbs convey different meanings,
such as "I might could do something about it tomorrow", where
could indicates the ability to do something and might
shows uncertaintly about that ability.
These kinds of double modal phrases are not regarded as standard,[8]
although a combination of a modal with a modal-like construction may
be used instead. "I might could do something about it" is more often
expressed as "I might be able to do something about it", which is
considered more standard. Similarly used to could, which
appears for example in country singer
Bill Carlisle's 1951 song "Too Old to Cut the Mustard":
- I used to could jump just like a deer,
- But now I need a new landing gear.
- I used to could jump a picket fence,
- But now I'm lucky if I jump an inch.[10]
is usually expressed as used to be able to. Double modals
can also be avoided by replacing one of the modal verbs with an
appropriate adverb, such as using probably could or might
possibly in place of might could.[9]
Double modals also occur in the closely related Germanic language
Scots.
Comparison with other Germanic languages
Many English modals have
cognates in other
Germanic languages, albeit with different meanings in some
cases. Unlike the English modals, however, these verbs are not
generally defective; they can inflect, and have forms such as
infinitives, participles and future tenses (for example using the
auxiliary werden in German). Examples of such cognates
include:
- in
German: müssen ("to have to"), können ("to be
able to"), sollen, cognates of must, can
and shall respectively. For the verbs can and
may, when used in the sense of giving permission as opposed
to the ability to do something, they are equivalent in meaning
to the German modal verb dürfen (to be allowed to) rather
than können. For example, können wir singen? and
dürfen wir singen? can both mean can we sing?,
although the first literally means do we have the ability
to/can we sing? while the second means do we have
permission to/may we sing? German also has two more modal
verbs, wollen (to want to do something) and
mögen (to like to do something), whose English
equivalents are technically not modal verbs (for example wir
wollen singen and wir mögen singen are, respectively
we want to sing and we like to sing,
requiring a construction using the to-infinitive).
- in
Dutch: mogen, moeten, kunnen, zouden,
cognates of may, must, can and should.
- in
Danish: måtte, kunne, ville, skulle,
cognates of may/must, can, will, shall.
See also
References
-
^ See Palmer, F.
R., Mood and Modality, Cambridge Univ. Press, second
edition, 2001, p. 33, and A Linguistic Study of the
English Verb, Longmans, 1965. For an author who rejects
ought as a modal because of the following particle
to (and does not mention had better), see Warner,
Anthony R., English Auxiliaries, Cambridge Univ.
Press, 1993. For more examples of discrepancies between
different authors' listings of modal or auxiliary verbs in
English, see
English auxiliaries.
-
^
Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, entry for
"need".
-
^
Dictionary.com
-
^ Fleischman,
Suzanne, The Future in Thought and Action, Cambridge
Univ. Press, 1982, pp. 86-97.
-
^ Comrie,
Bernard, Tense, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985, pp. 21,
47-48.
-
^
"UltraLingua Online Dictionary & Grammar, "Conditional
tense"".
-
^
Spanish Conditional. StudySpanish.com
- ^
a
b
Kenneth G. Wilson, "Double
Modal Auxiliaries",
The Columbia Guide to Standard American English,
1993.
- ^
a
b
David Rubin, "might could
(double modal)",
The Mavens' Word of the Day, Random House, November
20, 2000.
-
^ The Carlisles,
"Too Old To Cut The Mustard", 1951 single. Lyrics by Bill
Carlisle reproduced here under fair use policy.
External links